Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ appeals arising from a single judge's order in WP No.11179/2020 dated 21.06.2022. The appellant in WA No.593/2024, Sri Ravish Hastantram, through his GPA holder, challenged the order which had quashed the allotment of a site made by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in his favour. The BDA also filed WA No.883/2022 challenging the same order. The dispute originated when the respondent, Sri Sachin Nagarajappa, claimed that the allotment of the site to the appellant was illegal and sought its cancellation. The single judge had allowed the writ petition, quashing the allotment. On appeal, the division bench examined the facts: the appellant had applied for allotment of a site under a BDA scheme, paid the full consideration, and was put in possession. A sale deed was executed in his favour. However, the agreement of sale was not registered. The respondent contended that the non-registration rendered the allotment void. The court analyzed the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It held that the non-registration of the agreement of sale does not invalidate the subsequent sale deed, as the sale deed itself is a registered document. The court also applied the principle of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to protect the appellant's possession. The court found that the single judge had erred in quashing the allotment without considering that the appellant had paid full consideration and was in possession. The appeals were allowed, the order of the single judge was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. The court directed that the appellant's title and possession be protected.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Allotment of Site - Validity of Sale Deed - Non-Registration of Agreement - The issue was whether the allotment of a site by BDA in favour of the appellant was valid despite the non-registration of the agreement of sale. The court held that the sale deed executed by BDA in favour of the appellant is valid and the allotment cannot be quashed merely because the agreement of sale was not registered, as the appellant had paid full consideration and possession was delivered. (Paras 1-10) B) Registration Act - Section 17 and 49 - Unregistered Agreement - Admissibility - The court considered the effect of non-registration of an agreement of sale under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. It held that an unregistered agreement of sale is admissible for collateral purposes under Section 49, and the sale deed subsequently executed is not invalidated by the non-registration of the prior agreement. (Paras 5-8) C) Transfer of Property Act - Section 53A - Part Performance - The court applied the principle of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to protect the appellant's possession and interest in the property, as the appellant had paid the full consideration and was put in possession. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allotment of a site by BDA in favour of the appellant is valid despite the non-registration of the agreement of sale, and whether the subsequent sale deed executed by BDA in favour of the appellant is valid.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The order of the single judge dated 21.06.2022 in WP No.11179/2020 is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act
- 1961
- Bangalore Development Authority Act
- 1976
- Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act
- 1908
- Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
