IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Manish and Others - Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3964 of 2014
Decided On : 04-02-2015
Indian Registration Act - Sale Agreement - Section 17, Section 49
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance and possession, claiming that the respondents had agreed to sell the property to them and received part consideration. The trial Court held that the unregistered sale agreement is inadmissible in evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the unregistered sale agreement can be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of the unregistered sale agreement as evidence in the suit for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the proviso to section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, which allows the admission of an unregistered document affecting immovable property as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the trial Court was set aside, and the writ petition was disposed of in favor of the plaintiffs.
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs in the suit challenging the order of the trial Court dated 8-5-2014, whereby the trial Court has allowed the respondent's application and has held that since agreement to sale is not registered therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. In brief, the petitioners have filed suit for specific performance and for possession raising the plea that respondents had agreed to sale the suit property to petitioners and had received the part consideration on 19-1-2011 and on 25-1-2011 sale agreement was executed and further part consideration amount was paid. The respondents had filed an application under section 17 of Indian Registration Act (for short Act) read with section 49 on the ground that since the sale agreement is not registered, therefore, it is not admissible in evidence and the trial Court while allowing the respondent's application has taken the view that sale agreement being unregistered is inadmissible in evidence.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the sale agreement is admissible in evidence in terms of proviso to section 49 of Indian Registration Act.
3. As against this, counsel for respondents have submitted that since by way of State Amendment section 17(1)(b) has been added requiring registration of the sale agreement and the said provision is repugnant to proviso to section 49 of the Act, therefore, section 17(1)(b) will prevail in terms of Article 254 of Constitution and sale agreement being unregistered cannot be exhibited in evidence.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Undisputedly, the sale agreement dated 25-1-2011 is unregistered. Section 17(f) of the Act has been inserted by The Registration (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2009 with assent of the President by way of notification dated 14th January, 2010. The relevant part of amended section 17 of Act reads as under:
"17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.--(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act, XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:
....................
.........................
17(f) any document which purports or operates to effect any contract for sale of any immovable property."
6. In terms of the above provision an agreement to sale is required to be registered.
7. Section 49 of The Registration Act, which is relevant for the present purpose provides as under:
"49. Effect of non-registration of document required to be registered--
No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall--
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), [***] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.
8. Under section 49 of the Act a document required to be registered under section 17 of Act or by any provision of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered, but an exception has been carved out by way of proviso in respect of suit for specific performance to the effect that such a document can be received
K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd.
M. Karunanidhi Vs. Union of India and Another
Raghunath and Others Vs. Kedar Nath
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.