HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.HARIPRASAD, J
IGNATIOUS – Appellant
Versus
DOMINIC Advocate - GEORGE MATHEW, ,GEORGE MATHEW,K S HARIHARAPUTHRAN – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of Ext.P1 agreement for sale dated 24.07.2002. Petitioner was the defendant. Ext.P2 is copy of the plaint. Petitioner was set exparte, allegedly on account of the negligence of his advocate. Ext.P3 is copy of the judgment passed exparte in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, by invoking Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short, “the Act”) read with Order XXI Rule 32 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “the Code”) the respondent filed Ext.P4 application for getting a sale deed executed through the court as the petitioner did not obey the decree. It is further prayed by the respondent that the property be delivered to him, despite having a recital in Ext.P1 that possession of the property had been handed over to him. Then the petitioner, for the first time, entered the arena of litigation and questioned the executability of the decree. Ext.P5 is the objection filed by the petitioner. He contended that after introducing Section 17(1A) to the Registration Act, 1908 (in short, “Registration Act”)
Ext.P1, an unregistered agreement to assign, cannot confer any right on the respond
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.