Case Note & Summary
The background of the dispute involved a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.09.2013, filed by the original plaintiff against the original defendant. The facts revealed that after the plaintiff's chief examination, the defendant raised a preliminary issue regarding the admissibility of the unregistered agreement, citing the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act No.29 of 2012 to the Indian Registration Act, which mandated compulsory registration for instruments of agreement relating to sale of immovable property valued at Rs.100 and upwards. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding the document inadmissible, but the High Court, in revision, allowed the plaintiff's application and directed that the document be received in evidence. The legal issue centered on whether such an unregistered agreement is admissible in a suit for specific performance. The defendant argued for inadmissibility based on the state amendment, while the plaintiff relied on Section 49(a) and (c) of the Registration Act, 1908, contending that unregistered agreements can be admitted as evidence of a contract in specific performance suits. The Supreme Court's analysis focused on the interpretation of Section 49, emphasizing that unregistered documents are admissible for collateral purposes, such as proving the terms of a contract in specific performance cases, as they do not affect property rights. The Court reasoned that the state amendment did not override the central provision allowing such admissibility. The decision allowed the defendant's appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Trial Court's ruling that the unregistered agreement was inadmissible, thereby favoring the defendant in the evidentiary matter.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Evidence - Admissibility of Unregistered Agreements - Registration Act, 1908, Section 49 - The dispute involved an unregistered agreement to sell dated 10.09.2013 for immovable property valued at Rs.100 and upwards, which the defendant argued was inadmissible due to the Tamil Nadu Amendment requiring compulsory registration - The Supreme Court held that under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, such unregistered documents are admissible as evidence of a contract in suits for specific performance, as they do not purport to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property - The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Trial Court's decision that the document was inadmissible (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an unregistered agreement to sell, which is compulsorily registrable under the Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Registration Act, 1908, is admissible as evidence in a suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, and restored the order of the Trial Court holding the unregistered agreement inadmissible in evidence.
Law Points
- Unregistered agreements for sale of immovable property are admissible as evidence in suits for specific performance under Section 49 of the Registration Act
- 1908
- despite state amendments requiring compulsory registration
- as they serve as evidence of a contract rather than creating or extinguishing rights.
