The validity and enforceability of an agreement to sell, as well as the requirements for registration under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, were central to the court's decision.

ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral). -

CM-3987-C-2017

1. Although, the delay in filing of the appeal is huge, however, in view of the no objection by the learned counsel for the respondent, delay of 120 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main case

2. The defendants-appellants are in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the courts below while decreeing the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred by their status in the suit.

4. The plaintiff claims that the defendants entered into an agreement to sell on 10.11.2009 in his favour with respect to a large property against a sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-. As per the agreement to sell, the earnest money of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid and the agreement was signed by all the defendants. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on 09.11.2010. The plaintiff further claims that he had paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 18.11.2009, Rs.50,000/- on 18.11.2009, Rs.1,50,000/- on 25.11.2009 and Rs.50,000/- on 01.01.2010. The target date for execution of the sale deed was extended till 29.05.2011 as per the writing dated 06.11.2010. Since 29.05.2011 was a holiday and therefore, the plaintiff attended the office of the Sub-Registrar on 30.05.2011 but defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed. To create evidence of his attendance, the plaintiff got an affidavit attested from the Sub Registrar. Thereafter, he filed the suit on 08.09.2011 after serving a notice to the defendants on 14.06.2011. All the defendants filed a joint written statement taking a stand that there was no agreement to sell. It was pleaded that Gurinder Pal Singh-defendant no. 2 had taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and their signatures were taken on the blank papers on deposit of an original sale deed of 100 square yard plots. Defendant no.1, 3 and 4 never extended the time for execution of the sale deed. There was an interpolation in the agreement to sell.

5. The plaintiff herself appears in evidence and also examined Niranjan Singh PW2. Learned trial court on appreciation of evidence found that all the defendants have signed on each and every page of the agreement to sell. They have also thumb marked all the four pages. It was further held that Gurinder Pal Singh-defendant no.2 and Sukhwinder Kaur-defendant no.1 had signed the correction entry. Thus, the trial court after recording finding that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, decreed the suit. Thereafter, the defendants filed the first appeal which has also been dismissed after re-appreciation of the evidence.

6. This Bench has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

7. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the agreement to sell was inadmissible in the evidence. He submits that in view of the amendment in Section 17 of the Registration Act, the agreement to sell is required to be registered before it can be considered in evidence. It is proved that the witness of the margin has subsequently signed the agreement to sell. Defendant no.2 Gurinder Pal Singh died during the pendency of the suit and no doubt, an application for bringing on record his legal representatives was allowed, however, the trial court did not amend the memo of parties.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the amendment in Section 17 of the Registration Act is applicable only if a person intends to protect his possession as provided under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The language of Section 17(1-A) is clear and categoric. The agreement to sell is not required to be attested by two attesting witnesses. The defendants admit their signatures on the agreement to sell and therefore, the courts below have correctly decreed the suit.

9. At this stage, it will be appropriate to extract Section 17(1-A) of t