2023 Supreme(SC) 332
M. R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI
R. Hemalatha – Appellant
Versus
Kashthuri – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR Mr. K.S.mahadevan, Adv. Mrs. Swati Bansal, Adv. Mr. Rangarajan R., Adv.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
- An unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the Registration Act to be registered can be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance (!) (!) .
- The High Court correctly relied on the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, which allows unregistered documents affecting immovable property, required to be registered, to be admissible as evidence of a contract in specific circumstances (!) (!) .
- The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, introduced a mandatory registration requirement for agreements relating to the sale of immovable property of a certain value, specifically inserting Section 17(1)(g) (!) .
- Despite the amendment, there was no corresponding change made to the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, which continues to permit unregistered documents to be used as evidence in specific types of cases, such as suits for specific performance (!) (!) .
- The object and purpose of the Tamil Nadu Amendment was primarily to prevent loss to the exchequer due to non-registrable documents being executed on nominal or white paper, and not to restrict the evidentiary value of such documents in all circumstances (!) (!) .
- The legislative intent behind the registration requirement was to ensure proper documentation and prevent fraud, but the existing legal provisions, particularly the proviso to Section 49, continue to provide an exception allowing unregistered documents to serve as evidence in specific legal proceedings (!) (!) .
- The court emphasized that the absence of a corresponding amendment to Section 49 indicates that unregistered agreements can still be considered valid evidence for certain purposes, including specific performance, despite the new registration requirements (!) (!) .
- The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the High Court's reliance on the proviso to Section 49 was correct, and there was no legal error in accepting the unregistered agreement as evidence in the case at hand (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai passed in Revision Application No.1877 of 2017 dated 01.02.2022 by which the High Court has allowed the said revision application preferred by the respondent herein by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court passed in I.A. No.159 of 2017 in O.S. No.199 of 2014 by further directing that the document in question shall be received in evidence in the suit for specific performance, the original defendant has preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nut-shell are as under:
2.1 That the respondent herein is an original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “original plaintiff”) instituted civil suit being O.S. No.199 of 2014 for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 10.09.2013. After the chief-examination of the plaintiff as PW-1, on the application filed by the appellant – original defendant, a preliminary issue was framed by the learned Trial Court on the admissibility of the Agreement dated 10.09.2013 in evidence. It was the case on beha
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
