An unregistered agreement for sale of immovable property is inadmissible for specific performance under U.P. law, requiring continuous proof of readiness and willingness from the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1. The instant second appeal at the instance of defendants of Original Suit No.169 of 1983 (Gurudev Singh v. Prem Kumar and others) arises from a suit for specific performance of an unregistered Agreement for Sale (in short ‘AFS’) in relation to an immovable property situated in District Meerut. The trial court decreed the suit by judgment and order dated 20.10.1997, against which, the defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1997 (Prem Kumar Sachdeva and another v. Gurudev Singh) which met the fate of dismissal by judgment and decree dated 25.01.2001.

Brief facts of the case

2. One Gurudev Singh instituted the suit in question, initially at Jullundur (now known as Jalandhar), State of Punjab, where it was registered as Original Suit No.26 of 1980. Decree was claimed against three defendants on the basis of AFS dated 31.05.1977 qua land bearing Khasra Nos. 1035 and 1049 situated at Village Ghat, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut on the plea that defendants No.1 and 2 had executed a registered power of attorney dated 24.04.1977 in favour of defendant No.3- Puran Chand Sachdeva (in short ‘PCS’) authorizing him to enter into an AFS. An agreement was, accordingly, executed by the Attorney and a sum of Rs.55,000/- was received by the defendants in advance as part of sale consideration and he agreed to pay the balance amount before the competent registering authority at the time of registration of sale deed. The date fixed for execution of the sale deed was pleaded as 15.07.1977. It was stated in the plaint that on 14.07.1977, the plaintiff tendered balance sale price amounting to Rs.1,42,014/- besides cost of stamp and registration expenses and through a telegram dated 11.07.1977, he intimated the defendants that the plaintiff would reach Meerut on 14.07.1977 for registration of sale deed and the defendants should keep ready the income tax certificate. When, on 15.07.1977, the plaintiff waited for the defendants before the competent registering authority at Meerut but defendants did not appear to execute the sale deed, the suit was filed. The cause of action was alleged to have accrued on 31.05.1977 at Jalandhar and, then, on 15.07.1977.

3. The defendants No.1 and 2, i.e. the appellants herein, filed written statement taking a ground that power of attorney dated 23.05.1977 executed in favour of defendant No.3 had been cancelled on 25.05.1977, publication in respect whereof was made in daily newspaper Dainik Prabhat on 26.05.1977 and, therefore, the Attorney did not remain competent to execute an agreement or to receive advance money. Regarding execution of the agreement, it was pleaded that someone had made defendant No.3 to drink in Jalandhar, he did not remain in his senses and execution of the agreement was the result of such mischief.

Trial Court’s Judgment

4. The trial court, after recording a finding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had admitted execution of power of attorney in favour of defendant No.3 who failed to prove its due cancellation, the defendant No.3 was competent to execute an agreement. It disbelieved the defence and held the agreement as a duly proved document. As far as the question of “readiness and willingness”, the trial court recorded that plaintiff had successfully established the said component by not only reaching the Sub Registrar’s office on 15.07.1977 but also by opening a bank account on 14.07.1977 and depositing the money therein for the purposes of making payment to the appellants. When the plea was taken by the appellants as regards non-maintainability of the suit for want of registration of AFS, the trial court discarded the said objection by observing that since the agreement was executed in Jalandhar, i.e the State of Punjab, there being no requirement of registration in Punjab, merely because the property is situated in the State of U.P., the agreement could not be discarded.

Appellate Court’s Judgment

5. The defendant appellants filed Civil Appeal No.84 of 1997 that was