An unregistered sale agreement is admissible as evidence in suits for specific performance of a contract pursuant to the proviso of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by the petitioners (defendants) challenging the order

dated 19.11.2025 passed by the First District Judge, Sheopur, in Regular

Civil Suit No. 138-A of 2023.

2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the

respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract,

permanent injunction, and recovery of amount, based on a sale agreement

dated 25.01.2023. The agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the

defendants- petitioners for the sale of agricultural land for a total

consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.

10,00,000/-, but the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. The

petitioners filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and raised

an objection regarding the admissibility of unregistered sale agreement. The

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: MAHENDRA

BARIK

Signing time: 2/6/2026

10:59:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4573

2 MP-6774-2025

petitioners contended that agreement, being unregistered, could not be

admitted into evidence as per Section 17(f) of the Registration Act, 1908.

Petitioners objected to the trial Court’s decision to address this objection

during plaintiff’s chief examination.

3. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that the impugned order

passed by the trial Court is illegal and contrary to law. The objection

regarding the unregistered agreement was a distinct issue and should have

been decided separately before proceeding with evidence. The trial court

erred in addressing the objection during the chief examination of the

plaintiff, without affording them an adequate opportunity to present their

case. They further claim that the unregistered agreement is inadmissible in

evidence, and the impugned order has caused serious prejudice to them.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent argues that the

objection raised by petitioners is without merit. The plaintiff’s suit is based

on the execution of agreement, and the refusal of defendants to execute the

sale deed is central to the matter. The trial Court correctly addressed

objection during the chief examination of plaintiff. The issue regarding the

admissibility of documents can be raised at a later stage, and the trial Court

has the discretion to decide whether to admit the document during trial. The

respondent, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.

5. After hearing both parties and perusing the impugned order along

with the relevant documents, it is found that the core issue in the present case

case pertains to admissibility of unregistered sale agreement. The petitioners

raised objections under Section 17(f) of the Registration Act, 1908,

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: MAHENDRA

BARIK

Signing time: 2/6/2026

10:59:48 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4573

3 MP-6774-2025

contending that unregistered agreement was inadmissible in evidence.

However, the trial Court rightly relied on the proviso to Section 49 of the

Registration Act, which allows unregistered documents to be admitted as

evidence in specific performance cases. Furthermore, the document was

impounded in accordance with law, and possession of the property was not

delivered under the agreement. The trial Court did not commit any legal

error or procedural irregularity in exhibiting the document. There is no

ground for interference, as the trial Court has correctly followed the legal

principles.

6. In light of above discussion, Miscellaneous Petition fails and is

hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.