An unregistered sale agreement may be admissible as evidence for specific performance or as proof of ancillary transactions, despite mandatory registration requirements.

J U D G M E N T

The defendant in O.S.No.21/2015 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally, who is aggrieved by the decree and judgment in A.S.No.4/2021 dated 14.02.2023 on the files of the Sub Court, Pala, arose out of decree and judgment in O.S.No.21/2015, assails the same in this appeal filed under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The respondent is the sole plaintiff in this case.

2. I shall refer the parties in this appeal with reference to their status before the trial court, as `plaintiff’ and `defendant’

hereafter for convenience.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on admission.

4. Perused the judgments and copy of relevant records placed by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant.

5. In this matter, the plaintiff instituted Suit for realisation of an amount of Rs.3 lakh, alleged to be paid by him to the defendant, as advance sale consideration on 25.07.2014 when the plaintiff and defendant agreed to exchange their properties covered by the agreement. Consideration shown in the agreement was Rs.15,00,000/-, to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for effecting exchange of their properties. According to the plaintiff, Rs.3,00,000/- was given as advance sale consideration, out of Rs.15 lakh agreed upon. But later execution of the agreement failed. Therefore, the plaintiff sued for Rs.3 lakh with interest @ 9% per annum from 25.07.2014 till date, paid by him to the defendant.

6. The defendant entered appearance and denied the allegations in the plaint. The defendant denied execution of the agreement between the plaintiff and him in toto, while admitting that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2 lakh from the plaintiff on 25.07.2024 and towards security for the said transaction, he had issued a signed blank stamp paper and signed blank white papers to the plaintiff. Further the defendant had been paying Rs.20,000/- per month as interest. The further case of the defendant was that when he approached the plaintiff to settle the entire liability to the tune of Rs.2 lakh, then also the plaintiff demanded Rs.20,000/- more as interest. When the said demand was not heeded, using the blank stamp paper and blank signed papers, Ext.A1 agreement was created by the plaintiff.

7. The learned Munsiff ventured the matter after raising appropriate issues. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the plaintiff. No oral or documentary evidence let in by the defendant.

8. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court found that execution of the agreement was not proved and thereby the suit was dismissed. When the matter was taken in appeal before the learned Sub Judge, as per the judgment in A.S.No.4/2021, the learned Sub Judge reversed the finding of the trial court and decreed the suit allowing realisation of Rs.3,11,250/- with interest @ 6% per annum for the principal amount of Rs.3 lakh from the date of original suit till date of realisation, from the defendant and his assets.

9. While impeaching the verdict of the appellate court against the verdict of the trial court, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the appellate court went wrong in reversing the finding of the trial court in this case where the plaintiff miserably failed to prove execution of Ext.A1 agreement. He also argued that Ext.A1 agreement would require mandatory registration, as provided under Section 17 of the Registration Act and, therefore, acting on Ext.A1 agreement, if at all its execution is found to be proved, no relief could be granted for want of registration. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant that Ext.A1 could not be given emphasis under Section 49 of the also, since payment of consideration is not a collateral transaction or purpose.

10. It is argued by the learned counsel for the defendant further that none of the attesting witnesses to the document also was examined and, therefore, the appellate court went wrong in f