2020 Supreme(Tri) 79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Pradip Paul - Appellants
Vs.
Ila Saha and Ors. - Respondent
RFA 21 of 2017
Decided On : 12-06-2020

Headnote:

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 34 - SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - AGREEMENT FOR SALE - UNREGISTERED - SECTION 53-A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 AND SECTION 17(1A) OF THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - APPLICABILITY - HELD, THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE, THOUGH UNREGISTERED, COULD BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF A CONTRACT IN A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract and for perpetual injunction against the defendants seeking declaration that the sale deed bearing No. 1-3049, dated 04.04.2014 is invalid, nonest, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and a suit for Specific Performance of Contract and also for perpetual injunction. He claimed that he had been possessing the suit land as a tenant under the original landlord, Paresh Chandra Saha, who had expired on 03.10.2008 leaving behind his wife and two sons who were impleaded as defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 in the original suit. During continuation of the present appeal, the defendant No. 1 had expired. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 being the legal heirs of late Paresh Chandra Saha proposed the plaintiff to purchase the suit land as they were in urgent need of money. Having agreed to that proposal, the plaintiff entered into a written agreement for sale dated 29.08.2013. It was agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 that the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 would transfer the suit property to the plaintiff at a consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/- (rupees six lakh fifty thousand) only. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- (rupees one lakh forty thousand) only as advance out of the total consideration money and it was agreed upon between the plaintiff/transferee and the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 being the vendor that the plaintiff would pay the balance consideration money within next 6(six) months and on receipt, the vendor would execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff-transferee. By a written letter dated 12.11.2013, the plaintiff offered the balance consideration money of Rs. 5,10,000/- to the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and requested them to execute the sale deed for the suit property transferring the same absolutely to the plaintiff. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 refused to transfer the suit property by executing the sale deed on the pretext that it was entered into by some misrepresentation of facts. On 11.04.2014, the plaintiff received an information that the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 were trying to sell the suit property to another person suppressing the subsistence of the agreement for sale between him and the said defendants. However, the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 had fraudulently and illegally had sold the suit property to one Smt. Dipti Saha, defendant-respondent No. 4 herein.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the agreement for sale, though unregistered, could be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract and to obtain the registered Sale Deed on payment of Rs. 5,10,000/- in terms of the said Agreement (Exhibit-1) and in the event of failure on the part of the defendants No. 2 and 3 to execute such registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to get the Conveyance Deed to be executed and registered by the learned Court for and on behalf of the defendants No. 2 and 3 in accordance with law conferring the title of the suit property upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff is further entitled to get a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to get further declaration that the Sale Deed bearing No. 1-3049 dated 04.04.2014 executed between the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 and defendant No. 4 is illegal, void, ab anitio, non est and is not binding upon the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court declared the Sale Deed bearing No. 1-3049 dated 04.04.2014 as illegal, void ab initio.

Issues: (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature? (ii) Has the plaintiff any cause of action to institute the instant suit? (iii) Had the plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to purchase the suit land? (iv) Are the averments in respect of readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction sufficient to enforce Specific Performance? (v) Is the sale deed bearing No. 1-3049 dated 04.04.2014 void against the plaintiff? If so, is the sale deed liable to be declared invalid? (vi) Is the plaintiff entitled to an order of perpetual injunction, as prayed for? (vii) Is the plaintiff also entitled to a decree in this suit? (viii) What other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the agreement for sale, though unregistered, could be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The court relied on the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides 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.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. The court declared that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract and to obtain the registered Sale Deed on payment of Rs. 5,10,000/- in terms of the said Agreement (Exhibit-1) and in the event of failure on the part of the defendants No. 2 and 3 to execute such registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to get the Conveyance Deed to be executed and registered by the learned Court for and on behalf of the defendants No. 2 and 3 in accordance with law conferring the title of the suit property upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff is further entitled to get a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to get further declaration that the Sale Deed bearing No. 1-3049 dated 04.04.2014 executed between the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 and defendant No. 4 is illegal, void, ab anitio, non est and is not binding upon the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court declared the Sale Deed bearing No. 1-3049 dated 04.04.2014 as illegal, void ab initio.