Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Oyster Building India Private Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vishveshwarlal Hardia & Ors. – Respondents
Misc. Appeal No. 3583 of 2023
Decided On : 11-12-2023
Specific Performance of Contract - Registration Act, Transfer of Property Act - Section 49, Section 17(1)(f), Section 52 - The court discussed the applicability of the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act in the context of specific performance of contract. It highlighted the interpretation of Section 49 and the effect of amendments made in Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act. The court also emphasized the protection under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and its relevance in granting temporary injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the agreement was unregistered and the land had been sold to a third party.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the unregistered agreement to sell the immovable property is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance of contract. It also found that the protection under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be a reason to deny the relief of temporary injunction, especially when there are chances of the property being sold to a third party.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of an unregistered agreement in a suit for specific performance, the applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the denial of temporary injunction based on the registration status of the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that an unregistered agreement for the sale of immovable property is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance. It also clarified that the protection under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not preclude the grant of temporary injunction in certain circumstances.
Final Decision: The impugned order rejecting the application for temporary injunction was set aside, and the parties were directed to maintain the status quo until the final disposal of the civil suit.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(R) of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 12.05.2023, passed in Case No. RCSA/177/2023 by 20th District Judge, Indore whereby the appellant/plaintiff's application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of contract against the respondents. The application for temporary injunction filed in this suit has been rejected as aforesaid and hence this appeal.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that it entered into an agreement to sale dated 23.10.2020, in respect of the land situated at village Mirjapur, Tehsil & Dist. Indore with the respondents No. 1-6, and prior to that a Sauda Pavati was also executed on 29.09.2018, with the respondent No.1 only. The total consideration was Rs.3,51,90,000/-, out of which the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.53,89,900/-.
4. The plaintiff has filed the suit on 03.02.2023, whereas the respondents No. 1-6 have sold the aforesaid land to respondent No.8 on 28.02.2023 i.e., immediately after filing of the suit. However, the learned Judge of the trial Court has rejected the application for temporary injunction on the ground that the agreement, the specific performance which is sought has not been registered, and also that the respondent No.8, the subsequent purchaser has already paid the entire sale consideration whereas the plaintiff has paid only a sum of Rs.53,89,900/-.
5. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant could not file the suit for specific performance of contract earlier for the reason that in the agreement to sale itself, in para-4, it is clearly stipulated that a case is already pending in respect of the said land regarding the measurement and the entire amount shall be paid after the final order is passed in the measurement case and its information is conveyed to the plaintiff. It is submitted that since the plaintiff has already paid a huge sum of Rs.53,89,900/-, the learned Judge of the trial Court ought to have considered the fact that under Section 49 of the Registration Act in a case of specific performance of contract, registration of agreement is not necessary. It is also submitted that if the temporary injunction is not granted to the appellant, it would only give rise to multiplicity of the litigation.
6. Lastly, it is also submitted that the transaction of the defendants no.1 to 6 with defendant no.8 is a sham transaction which is also apparent from the fact that the petitioner was ready to give Rs.3,51,90,000/- for the land which has been allegedly sold by the defendants no.1 to 6 to the defendant no.8 for a sum of Rs.2,17,38,000/- and is also trying to justify the same.
7. In support of his submission, counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. reported as 2010(3) MPLJ (S.C.) 500 and also on Manish & Anr. vs. Anil Kumar reported as 2015(2) MPLJ 645.
8. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent No.8. It is submitted that the respondent No.8 has already paid the entire sale consideration through RTGS, and the sale deed has already been registered in his name. In such circumstances, no prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff on the basis of an unregistered document.
9. Counsel has also referred to Section 17(1)(b)(f) of the Registration (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2014 wherein it is provided that registration of a document any document which purports or operates to effect any contract for sale of any immovable property is essentially required to be registered.
10. Shri A.S. Bahrawat, learned counsel for the respondents No.1-6 has also submitted that initially a Sauda Pavati was executed on 29.09.2018, and the plaintiff has paid only a sum of Rs.18,50,000/-, and by paying the aforesaid amount to the defendants No.1-6, a false
Unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
An unregistered sale agreement can be considered for proving possession and specific performance, and an agreement to sell does not confer any right, title, or interest over the property, thus not re....
An unregistered agreement to sell cannot serve as a basis for injunctive relief against a true owner of property, reflecting the necessity of registration under relevant laws.
An oral agreement for the sale of immovable property is unenforceable without a written and registered agreement under the Registration Act and Specific Relief Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
