Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Construction agreements for apartments are mandatorily registrable under Tamil Nadu law from 01.12.2012, following the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 29 of 2012 to Section 17 of the Registration Act ["[R. Hemalatha VS Kashthuri - Supreme Court"]], ["Oyster Building India Private Ltd. VS Vishveshwarlal Hardia - Madhya Pradesh"]].
The key legislative change was the insertion of Section 17(1)(g) into the Registration Act, which explicitly requires agreements relating to sale of immovable property valued at Rs.100 or above to be registered compulsorily ["[R. Hemalatha VS Kashthuri - Supreme Court"]], ["Shaju S/o Nareparamban Vareed vs Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. - Kerala"]], ["Oyster Building India Private Ltd. VS Vishveshwarlal Hardia - Madhya Pradesh"]].
If a construction agreement executed on 26.10.2013 was not registered, it is generally inadmissible as evidence in court, since the law mandates registration for such agreements made on or after 13.09.2013. Courts have held that unregistered agreements relating to sale of immovable property cannot be used to establish the primary object of sale, leading to their rejection in evidence ["[R. Hemalatha VS Kashthuri - Supreme Court"], ["Shaju, S/o.Nareparamban Vareed vs Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. - Kerala"], ["SHAJU vs VICTORY GRANITE BRICKS PVT. LTD. - Kerala"]].
Several cases cited confirm that post-amendment, unregistered agreements for sale of immovable properties of value above Rs.100 are not recognized in evidence, and their non-registration results in the agreement being inadmissible ["[R. Hemalatha VS Kashthuri - Supreme Court"], ["Shaju, S/o.Nareparamban Vareed vs Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. - Kerala"], ["SHAJU vs VICTORY GRANITE BRICKS PVT. LTD. - Kerala"], ["R. SANTHI PITCHAIYA NATTAR vs HOMEFINDERS HOUSING LTD - Madras"]].
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have reiterated that the registration requirement is mandatory and that failure to register such agreements affects their evidentiary value, often leading to orders that agreements executed after the law's effective date are inadmissible if unregistered ["[R. Hemalatha VS Kashthuri - Supreme Court"], ["SHAJU vs VICTORY GRANITE BRICKS PVT. LTD. - Kerala"], ["Shaju, S/o.Nareparamban Vareed vs Victory Granite Bricks Pvt. Ltd. - Kerala"]].
Therefore, in the hypothetical case where a construction agreement executed on 26.10.2013 was not registered, it would be considered invalid for evidentiary purposes and could not be used to enforce rights or establish the agreement's terms in court, pursuant to the law effective from 01.12.2012 ["[R. Hemalatha VS Kashthuri - Supreme Court"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Given the legal mandate from 01.12.2012 onwards, any construction agreement executed on or after this date in Tamil Nadu must be registered to be valid and admissible in evidence. An unregistered agreement executed on 26.10.2013 would be inadmissible, potentially affecting enforcement and legal proceedings related to the property. This underscores the importance of timely registration to ensure legal validity and enforceability of construction agreements in Tamil Nadu.
In the bustling real estate market of Tamil Nadu, particularly for apartment constructions, buyers and builders often face complex legal hurdles. Imagine signing a construction agreement for your dream apartment on 26.10.2013, only to later discover it wasn't registered. Construction agreements of apartments are mandatorily registrable in Tamil Nadu effective from 01.10.2013. What happens if such an agreement executed on 26.10.2013 was not registered? This post dives deep into the legal implications, drawing from key statutes, amendments, and judicial precedents to help you navigate this issue.
Note: This article provides general information based on legal provisions and case law. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, introduced significant changes to the Registration Act, 1908, by inserting Section 17(1)(g). This provision mandates the registration of instruments of agreement relating to sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, effective from 01.10.2013. Jagadeesan VS A. Logesh - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3688Kumarasamy VS P. Subramaniyam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2284
Prior to this date, unregistered agreements could often serve as evidence of contracts or for collateral purposes. However, post-2013, construction agreements—especially those resembling sale arrangements for apartments—fall squarely under this mandatory registration rule. The legislative intent was clear: to curb disputes and ensure transparency in real estate transactions involving immovable property. Jagadeesan VS A. Logesh - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3688
Under Section 49 of the Registration Act, unregistered documents required to be registered by Section 17:- Shall not affect any immovable property.- Cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property (with limited exceptions). Jagadeesan VS A. Logesh - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3688Kumarasamy VS P. Subramaniyam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2284
For a construction agreement executed on 26.10.2013 and left unregistered, this means it is generally inadmissible as evidence of the transaction affecting immovable property. Enforceability for substantive relief, such as specific performance, becomes highly questionable. Courts have consistently held that such agreements cannot confer title or rights over the property without registration. Kumarasamy VS P. Subramaniyam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2284
In practical terms:- Buyers cannot easily claim ownership or force sale deed execution.- Builders risk challenges to their construction approvals or joint ventures tied to these agreements. G. Shanmugasundar VS Principal Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1144
Indian courts, particularly in Tamil Nadu, have clarified the post-2013 landscape. Unregistered agreements executed after 01.10.2013 are typically not enforceable for substantive relief like specific performance, though they may be used for collateral purposes. Jagadeesan VS A. Logesh - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3688Kumarasamy VS P. Subramaniyam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2284
For instance, judicial precedents emphasize: agreements of sale or sale-like arrangements entered into after the effective date, but not registered, are typically not enforceable for substantive relief such as specific performance, though they may be admissible for collateral purposes or to prove part performance under certain conditions. Jagadeesan VS A. Logesh - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3688Kumarasamy VS P. Subramaniyam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2284
In a Trichy case involving an unregistered agreement of sale, the court allowed it as evidence in a specific performance suit, noting it fell under the proviso to Section 49. The finding was: document shall be received in evidence, considering the fact that suit in question is a suit for specific performance, which falls within first exception carved out in proviso to Section 49. Kasthuri VS R. Hemalatha - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 388
However, this is narrow—most cases post-amendment reject unregistered documents for core property rights, distinguishing Tamil Nadu from states like Uttar Pradesh where Section 49 was also amended. Kasthuri VS R. Hemalatha - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 388KASTHURI vs R.HEMALATHA
Section 49 provides limited lifelines:- Evidence in specific performance suits under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act.- Collateral transactions not requiring registration.- Part performance under certain conditions. Jagadeesan VS A. Logesh - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3688Kumarasamy VS P. Subramaniyam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2284
Yet, courts stress these do not override mandatory registration. The law does not permit enforcement of unregistered agreements executed after the effective date as valid sale contracts, and courts are likely to reject such claims for substantive relief. Kumarasamy VS P. Subramaniyam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2284
Agreements before 01.10.2013 remain admissible if unregistered, but post-date ones like 26.10.2013 do not. Jagadeesan VS A. Logesh - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3688
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), adds layers for ongoing projects. Tamil Nadu notified RERA Rules on 22.06.2017, applying to projects regardless of completion status. SM Nirman Private Limited VS Olympia Grande Apartments Owner's Welfare Association, Pallavaram Registration No. 569/2016, No. 328, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1985KSM Nirman Private Limited vs Olympia Grande Apartments Owner's Welfare Association - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2397
Even for pre-RERA agreements like those in 2013, disputes over delays, maintenance, or unfair terms surface in consumer forums. In cases involving 2013 construction-linked agreements, commissions found them wholly one-sided and unfair, awarding refunds with 9% interest for delays. One ruling noted: in case of delay the Opposite Party Builder is liable to pay 1%... whereas... Buyer is liable to pay interest @18% p.a. – Whether agreement can be said to be one sided. Ramesh Thangarajan VS Sylvanus Builders & Developers Ltd.
RERA tribunals have upheld complaints for completed projects, directing promoters to address maintenance and corpus funds. The RERA Act applies to ongoing projects regardless of completion dates, ensuring consumer grievances are addressed. SM Nirman Private Limited VS Olympia Grande Apartments Owner's Welfare Association, Pallavaram Registration No. 569/2016, No. 328, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1985
Unauthorized constructions tied to unregistered agreements also invite demolition orders under Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. Courts lament officials' inaction, urging strict enforcement to protect buyers. G. Shanmugasundar VS Principal Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1144
To avoid pitfalls:- Register promptly: Ensure construction/sale agreements post-01.10.2013 are registered within the statutory period.- Verify approvals: Link agreements to valid planning permissions (e.g., C.No. 963/2013 TLPA-2 dated 12.11.2013). G. Shanmugasundar VS Principal Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1144- Opt for RERA-registered projects: Post-2016, check promoter compliance.- Seek alternatives for unregistered docs: Use only for collateral evidence, not title claims.- Negotiate fair terms: Avoid one-sided clauses; consumer courts may strike them down. Prerna Banerjee VS Puri Construction Private LimitedPrerna Banerjee VS Puri Construction Private Limited
Relying on unregistered 2013 agreements may jeopardize claims—registration is essential for enforceability.
In summary, an unregistered construction agreement dated 26.10.2013 would typically be ineffective for substantive remedies. Stay compliant to safeguard your real estate investments in Tamil Nadu's dynamic market.
References:1. Jagadeesan VS A. Logesh - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3688: Insertion of Section 17(1)(g) and non-registration effects.2. Kumarasamy VS P. Subramaniyam - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2284: Mandatory registration post-2013 and exceptions.
Share your thoughts or experiences in the comments below!
#TamilNaduRealEstate, #RegistrationActTN, #ConstructionAgreement
No.199 of 2014 for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 10.09.2013. ... Nadu Amendment to Section 17 of the Registration Act making an Agreement to Sell to be compulsorily registered with effect from 01.12.2012. ... The learned Trial Court held the preliminary issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff by observing that the unregistered Agreement dated 10.09.2013 shall not#H....
Pursuant to the said construction agreement, the promoter got approval for construction of 92 residential apartments in a four storey building in Survey Nos. 98/1 and 98/2 alone vide C.No. 963/2013 TLPA-2 dated 12.11.2013. 2.2. ... Pursuant to the same, the Government of Tamil Nadu has notified the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 on 22.06.2017. ... After the joint venture a....
Registration Act remained unamended in Tamil Nadu. While the trial court had ruled in favour of the defendant, holding that an unregistered agreement executed after the amendment was inadmissible in evidence, it was contended before the Supreme Court that, in view of a href="./..
Section 49 of the Registration Act remained unamended in Tamil Nadu.
As per the agreement dated 20.01.2014, the defendant agreed to sell 1.26 acres of land owned by him to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per cent, within a period of three months. ... In that case, the Court considered the impact of an amendment introduced by the State of Tamil Nadu to Section 17(1) of the REGISTRATION ACT . ... Thus, on and after the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, as per Section 17(1) (g), instrument of agreement#HL....
The construction agreement was executed on June 7, 2012 and the sale deed for the undivided share of land (UDS) was registered on June 29,2012 as Document No.1941 of 2012, before the Sub-Registrar Office, Marakkanam, in respect of the said apartments. ... Thereafter, the respondent executed the construction agreement on 07.06.2012 and also executed a sale deed of undivided share of land on 29.06.2012. The appellant was required to p....
Like in the case of Tamil Nadu, no amendment was brought out to Section 49 even in the State of Andhra Pradesh. ... The learned Judge had considered the amendment Act of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and the learned Judge had observed that in Uttar Pradesh, a corresponding amendment was brought about to Section 49, which is not the case both in Andhra Pradesh as well as Tamil Nadu. ... The Bench observed that the #HL_....
(MD) No.1877 of 2017 was brought about to Section 49, which is not the case both in Andhra Pradesh as well as Tamil Nadu. ... Like in the case of Tamil Nadu, no amendment was brought out to Section 49 even in the State of Andhra Pradesh. ... It is her case that on 10.09.2013, the defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with her to sell the suit schedule properties ....
Section 2, Sections 20 to 39, Sections 41 to 58, Sections 71 to 28, Sections 81 to 92 came into force on 01.05.2016, Sections 3 to 19, 40, 59 to 70, 79 and 80 came into force on 01.05.2017 and the Real Estate Act Tamil Nadu Rules 2017 came into force on 22.06.2017. ... Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Association filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu RERA Appellate Tribunal and the case was numbered as Appeal No.75 of 2019. ... ), vide their proceedings dat....
, 1981 Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), vide their proceedings dated 21.12.2020 and 12.01.2021, the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) is not operational and is also not being maintained. ... Section 2 , Sections 2 0 to 39, Sections 41 to 58, Sections 71 to 28, Sections 81 to 92 came into force on 01.05.2016, Sections 3 to 19, 40, 59 to 70, 79 and 80 came into force on 01.05.2017 and the Real Estate Act Tamil Nadu Rules 2017 c....
It was alleged that the terms and conditions of the Agreements were unfair, one-sided and only in favour of the OP Builder. Share of land Agreement/Agreement to sell and Construction Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreements) were executed between the Parties on 10.09.2013.
Although the terms of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were arbitrary, but the complainants had no option except to sign it. The complainants had deposited total Rs.4609680/- by that time. The Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 09.10.2013. Along with allotment letter, ‘Construction Linked Payment Plan’ was supplied, in which total cost of Rs.23723496/- was shown.
Along with allotment letter, ‘Construction Linked Payment Plan’ was supplied, in which total cost of Rs.23723496/- was shown. The Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 09.10.2013. Although the terms of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were arbitrary, but the complainants had no option except to sign it. The complainants had deposited total Rs.4609680/- by that time.
Before the execution of that agreement, there were three partners in the firm, the appellant, the respondent and one V.K. Moidu. When Moidu chose to move out, the agreement dated 28.10.2013 was brought in existence. The partnership agreement was executed on 28.10.2013. Shalimar Jewellery, a partnership concern dealing in the sale of gold.
Complainant-Jetha Nand Saluja purchased the land in question from Smt. Kaushal Aggarwal and Smt. Sunita Aggarwal on 25.10.2013. The petitioner had given NOC dated 13.01.2014 (Annexure R-2/6) and NOC dated 10.04.2015 (Annexure R-2/5) but executed agreement dated 16.06.2015 in favour of Vivek Gupta. The petitioner has claimed that Suresh Kumar Ahuja executed agreement to sell dated 24.10.2013 but the signatures on the agreement bear the date of 26.10.2013 and the same was ante-dated. The petitioner has committed serious offences of cheating, fraud, forgery etc. to grab the pr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
