Gujarat High Court
Chetna Nailesh Gandhi vs Jayshreeben Kalyanbhai Mashruwala on 20 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 239 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 239 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
CHETNA NAILESH GANDHI
Versus
JAYSHREEBEN KALYANBHAI MASHRUWALA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VANDAN K BAXI(5863) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 20/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Vandan K. Baxi for the
respondents on caveat waives service of notice of admission of
appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Patel for the appellant
and learned senior counsel Mr. Sudhir Nanavaty with learned
advocate Mr. Vandan K. Baxi for the respondents. With the
consent of the learned advocates of the respective parties,
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
present appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith.
3. The parties have been referred as per the original position
in the suit. The short facts which are necessary to resolve the
controversy involved in the appeal reads as under.
3.1. The appellant herein is original defendant and the
respondents are original plaintiffs. The defendant is owner of
suit property in question i.e. Sub Plot No.23 situate in the Scheme
known as Shashwat Bungalows of Ambica Smruti Coop. Housing
Society Ltd., Vibhag-I, Village : Bodakdev, Taluka : Ghatlodiya,
District : Ahmedabad. She has entered into unregistered
agreement to sale with plaintiffs on 14.04.2022 and
supplementary agreement was also executed on 30.09.2023 for
total sale consideration of Rs. 17,51,00,000/-. Out of total sale
consideration, the plaintiffs have paid sum of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- on
the date of execution of agreement to sale i.e. 14.04.2022. The
possession of suit property is not parted with the plaintiffs.
3.2. It appears that the dispute has been started between the
parties which resulted into cancellation of the aforesaid
agreement to sale by the defendant vide its notice dated
17.12.2022. The plaintiffs appear to have replied the said notice
on 04.01.2023.
3.3. So, in view of the aforesaid cancellation of agreement to
sale by the defendant, the respondents herein have no other
option but to file Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 2023 against the
appellant- defendant for specific performance and permanent
injunction as well as seeking declaration against wrong
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
cancellation of agreement to sale by the defendants thereby
challenged such cancellation of agreement.
3.4. The injunction application was filed by the plaintiffs which
was opposed by the defendant. After bi-parte hearing, the
learned trial Court has allowed the injunction application filed by
the plaintiffs below Exh.5 vide its judgment and order dated
28.08.2024. The trial court has directed the defendant to
maintain status-quo in respect of the title and possession of the
suit property till disposal of the suit.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the 3 rd
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura
in Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 2023, the defendant has preferred
this Appeal from Order under order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
Submission of the learned advocate for the appellant-
defendant.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Patel for the appellant-
defendant would submit that it is an undisputed fact that there is
unregistered agreement to sale executed between the parties
thereby the plaintiffs can not seek performance of such
unregistered agreement to sale by filing suit. He would submit
that the suit itself is not maintainable as the document which is
sought to be performed by the defendant is unregistered
agreement.
Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined
5.1. He would further submit that in view of Section 17 of
Registration Act, 1908, such agreement requires to be registered
and if it is not registered, no relief in favour of the plaintiffs can
be granted. To buttress his argument, he is relying upon the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Balram
Singh Vs. Kelo Devi dated 23.09.2022 in Civil Appeal 6733 of
2022 reported in 2022 SCC Online 1283.
5.2. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that as
per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, on the strength
of unregistered agreement, the plaintiffs can not get principal
relief seeking performance of the agreement, then question of
granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs would not arise.
5.3. He would submit that the learned trial Court has committed
a gross error while granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs
by placing reliance upon an unregistered agreement to sale. He
would further submit that when the suit itself is not maintainable
on the strength of unregistered agreement, the trial Court could
not have granted relief in favour of the plaintiffs.
5.4. So, by making the aforesaid submissions and placing
reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiain
the case of Balram Singh (supra), he would request to this Court
to allow the appeal and pray for quashing and setting aside the
impugned judgement and order passed by the trial Court.
Submission of the learned advocate for the respondents-
plaintiffs
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr. Sudhir Nanavaty with
learned advocate Mr. Nandan Baxi for the respondents would
submit that the argument of learned advocate for the appellant
is misconceived at law and not in consonance with the provisions
of law. He would further submit that it is settled legal position of
law that the suit for specific performance of unregistered
agreement to sale is maintainable and once the execution of
unregistered agreement to sale is admitted and part
performance i.e. part payment made by the plaintiffs to the
defendant i.e. original owner of the suit property is not disputed,
as a consequence, the trial Court needs to protect the interest of
the plaintiffs thereby to grant injunction as prayed for. So, he
would submit that no error has been committed by trial court
while granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
6.1. He would submit that the provisions of Section 17 of
Registration Act, 1908 alone can not be seen while deciding the
issue germen in the appeal as according to him, there is no
reciprocal amendment carried out by the legislature in Section
49 of Registration Act, which entitled the Court to consider such
unregistered agreement to sale while granting any reliefs as
prayed in the suit in question.
6.2. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has at
length discussed the argument so canvassed by the appellant and
rejected it by placing reliance upon the decision of this Court
passed in Appeal from Order No. 35 of 2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court on 15.03.2022, which is
referred and relied by the learned trial Court in Para-17 of its
impugned judgement and order.
Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined
6.3. He would further submit that as back as in the year 2010,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiain its decision in the case of S.
Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram and others reported in (2010)
5 SCC 401 has clarified the position of law thereby it has been in
clear terms held that the suit for specific performance is
maintainable, even if the agreement to sale is unregistered.
6.4. He would also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Indiain the case of P. Ramasubbamma Vs.
Vijayalakshmi and others reported 2022 (7) SCC 384, wherein
also in a similar facts situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
entertained the plea of plaintiff.
6.6. Making the above aforesaid submissions, learned senior
counsel Mr. Nanavaty would request this Court that there is no
merit in the appeal and so called question of law raised by the
appellant is not at all requires to be now examined in view of the
series of pronouncement by the Hon’ble Apex Courts and this
Hon’ble Court. Thus, he would request to this Court to dismiss
the appeal and confirm the judgement and order passed by the
trial Court.
7. No other and further submissions made by the respective
learned advocates appearing for the parties.
Points of determination
(i) Whether the suit for specific performance is
maintainable on the strength of the agreement to sale which
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
is unregistered one?
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
trial Court has committed any error in granting injunction in
favour of the plaintiffs when the performance of agreement
to sale sought for on the strength of an unregistered
agreement to sale?
ANALYSIS
8. The short controversy which arise and requires to be
resolved as to whether the suit for specific performance would
be maintainable in a case where agreement to sale whose
performance sought for is unregistered one and consequently
can injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiffs?
8.1 To appreciate the arguments canvassed by learned
advocate Mr. Manish Patel for the defendant, I would first like to
reproduce the relevant provision of law i.e. section 17 and 49 of
Registration Act, 1908 (herein after reads as Act, 1908) reads as
under :-
“17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.–
(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to
which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been
executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the
Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or
the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force,
namely:–
(a) instruments of gift of immovable property;
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to
create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in
future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the
value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable
property;
(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or
payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration,
assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest;
and
(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term
exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;
[(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree
or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award
purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish,
whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether
vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards,
to or in immovable property:]
Provided that the [State Government] may, by order published in the
[Official Gazette], exempt from the operation of this sub-section any
lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by
which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which
do not exceed fifty rupees.
[(1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration,
any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been
executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other
Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (48 of 2001) and if such
documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then,
they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.]
(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to-
Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined (i) any composition deed; or
(ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company,
notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in
part of immovable property; or
(iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating,
declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest,
to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to
the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company
has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of
its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for
the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or
(iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any
such Company; or
(v) [any document other than the documents specified in sub-section
(1A)] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing
any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and
upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to
obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or
(vi) any decree or order of a Court [except a decree or order expressed
to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other
than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding]; or
(vii) any grant of immovable property by [Government]; or
(viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or
(ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security
granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land
Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or
(x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists, Loans Act, 1884,
or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that
Act; or
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
[(xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of
1890), vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments
or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or]
(xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment
of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt
for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not
purport to extinguish the mortgage; or
(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold
by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer.
[Explanation.–A document purporting or operating to effect a contract
for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or
ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such
document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of
the whole or any part of the purchase money.]
(3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the 1st day of January,
1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered.
49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.–
No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall–
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property
or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property
and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of
1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a
suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act,
1877 (3 of 1877) *** or as evidence of any collateral transaction not
required to be effected by registered instrument.]”
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
8.2. The harmonious reading of the aforesaid provisions would
lead to only conclusion that despite there is an amendment in S.
17 in Act, 1908 thereby sub-section 1A has been incorporated in
S.17 but no reciprocal amendment carried out in S. 49 of Act,
1908 then unregistered agreement to sale still may be received
as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. If it
be so, how one can agitate that such suit for specific
performance is not maintainable filed on strength of an
unregistered agreement to sale. The law on the subject is very
clear and considering proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act,
there should not have been any cavil about maintainability of the
suit for specific performance filed on the strength of
unregistered agreement to sale.
8.3. To better understand the issue, it is apt to rely upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of
Bharat Aluminium Co and others v/s Kaiser Aluminium Technical
Service and Ors. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 552 wherein held in
para-173 to 176 (relevant portion) read as under:-
“173. The Civil Courts in India, by virtue of Section 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the ‘CPC‘), have the jurisdiction to try
all suits of a civil nature, excepting suits which are either expressly or
impliedly barred. Fundamental to the maintainability of a civil suit is the
existence of a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. This is evident
from the various provisions contained in the CPC. However, it would be
appropriate to notice that Order VII Rule 1 gives the list of the
particulars which have to be mandatorily included in the plaint. Order
VII Rule 1(e) mandates the plaintiff to state the facts constituting thePage 11 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
cause of action and when it arose. Order VII Rule 11(a) provides the
plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. A
cause of action is the bundle of facts which are required to be proved
for obtaining relief prayed for in the suit. The suit of the plaintiff has to
be framed in accordance with Order II. Order II Rule 1 provides that
every suit shall as far as practicable be framed so as to afford ground
for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further
litigation concerning them. The aforesaid rule is required to be read
along with Rule 2 which provides that every suit shall include the whole
of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the
cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in
order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court. The aforesaid
provisions read together would lead to the firm conclusion that the
existence of cause of action is a sine qua non for the maintainability of
a civil suit.
175. ………….The suit would be maintainable only on the existence of a
cause of action, which would entitle the plaintiff for the substantive
relief claimed in the suit. The interim injunction itself must be a part of
the substantive relief to which the plaintiff’s cause of action entitled
him…………….
176. ……….An interim relief can be granted only in aid or, and as
ancillary to, the main relief which may be available to the party on final
determination of his rights in a suit or proceeding”
Emphasized supplied.
8.4. Thus, in view of aforesaid clear pronouncement of law by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of BALCO (supra), the
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
suit would be maintainable only on the existence of a cause of
action, thereby it would entitle the plaintiff for the substantive
relief claimed in the suit. By virtue of proviso to S. 49 of Act,
1908, when unregistered agreement to sale is admissible in
evidence in a suit for specific performance of such agreement
then for the alleged breach of such agreement by transferor
(seller) give a cause to transferee (purchaser) to file suit and such
suit would definitely for all purposes maintainable.
8.5. Nonetheless, controversy about non-maintainability of
suit in question is raised by the learned advocate for the
appellant by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Balram Singh (supra).
According to the learned advocate of appellant, the observation
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clearly suggests and
held that if the agreement to sale is unregistered one, no relief
of specific performance of such agreement to sale can be
granted and the plaintiffs will not succeed in the suit seeking
performance of unregistered agreement to sale.
8.6. After closely reading of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Balram Singh (supra), the
impression which has been so carried by the learned advocate of
appellant is not only misconceived notions but not even remotely
suggesting that such suit could not be maintainable.
8.7. The facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Balram Singh (supra) that the plaintiffs have filed suit for
permanent injunction on the strength of an unregistered
agreement without seeking any relief of performance. Whereas,
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
the defendant has filed a counter claim seeking possession of the
suit property. The matter went up to the Highest Court and in the
aforesaid background facts and the prayer made in the suit/
counter claim, the following observations have been made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-5 & 6, which reads as
under :-
“5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original plaintiff
instituted a suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction only,
which was claimed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated
23.03.1996. However, it is required to be noted that the agreement to
sell dated 23.03.1996 was an unregistered document/agreement to
sell on ten rupees stamp paper. Therefore, as such, such an
unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in
evidence.
6. Having conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed
in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell
as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for
permanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, an
unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral
purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief
indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive
relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance.”
Emphasized supplied.
8.8. So, in view of aforesaid decision, in a case where suit is filed
only seeking an injunction without further seeking a performance
of contract of unregistered agreement to sale than naturally
proviso to S. 49 of Act, 1908 may not come into play. Thus, in
view of the aforesaid facts and issue before the Hon’ble Apex
Court, it has been answered accordingly.
Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined
8.9. There was no such issue in the case of Balram Singh (supra)
about the maintainability of the suit for seeking specific
performance on the strength of unregistered agreement to sale
as raised by the defendant. If it be so, it would be misplaced to
rely upon such decision by the appellant. It is well settled law
that ratio of decision of Honourable Supreme Court of India
would be binding and not what can be gathered from any
observation made by it as the observations made in a judgment
are not binding unless they are directly related to the main
questions being considered.
8.10. At this stage, it is profitable to read and rely upon the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.
Hemalatha Vs. Kashthuri reported in (2023) 10 SCC 725
wherein it has been so held as under :-
“17……….The short question posed for the consideration of this Court is
effect of Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act applicable to the State
of Tamil Nadu by which Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act has
been inserted and instruments of agreement relating to sale of
immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards is made
compulsorily registrable and whether such unregistered agreement
relating to sale of immovable property can be received in evidence in a
suit for specific performance?
23. Thus, as per the proviso to Section 49, an unregistered
document affecting the immovable property and required by the
Registration Act to be registered may be received as evidence of aPage 15 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the
Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction
not required to be effected by registered document.
25. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the proviso to Section
49 came to be inserted vide Act No.21 of 1929 and thereafter, Section
17(1A) came to be inserted by Act No. 48 of 2001 with effect from
24.09.2001 by which the documents containing contracts to transfer or
consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 of
the Transfer of Properties Act is made compulsorily to be registered if
they have been executed on or after 2001 and if such documents are
not registered on or after such commencement, then there shall have
no effect for the purposes of said Section 53A. So, the exception to the
proviso to Section 49 is provided under Section 17(1A) of the
Registration Act. Otherwise, the proviso to Section 49 with respect to
the documents other than referred to in Section 17(1A) shall be
applicable.
26. Under the circumstances, as per the proviso to Section 49 of the
Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable
property and required by the Registration Act or the Transfer of
Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a
contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the
Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction
not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject
to Section 17(1- A) of the Registration Act. It is not the case on behalf
of either of the parties that the document/agreement to sell in questionPage 16 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
would fall under the category of document as per Section 17(1-A) of
the Registration Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the High Court has rightly observed and held relying upon the
proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act that the unregistered
document in question, namely, unregistered agreement to sell in
question shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific
performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of Section
49.”
Emphasized supplied.
8.11. If one examined the ratio of the decision in the case
of R. Hemalatha (supra), the controversy which was germane
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was precisely about
admissibility of the unregistered agreement to sale in a suit for
specific performance. In the case of R. Hemalatha (supra), the
Apex Court has reiterated the law on the issue and in clear terms
held that if the suit is for the specific performance of
unregistered agreement to sale, such unregistered document is
admissible in evidence. Once the document is held to be
admissible in evidence, automatically suit would be maintainable
if its performance is sought for in the suit where terms of such
agreement (document) is alleged to have been breached by the
defendant.
8.12. As such, in view of the aforesaid subsequent decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R. Hemalatha
(supra), this Court would not like to and need not have to
examine the argument of the appellant but to resolve the
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
controversy forever and to explain the position of law stand as
on date, I have to make the aforesaid observations on the issue
germane in the appeal.
8.13. The upshot of the aforesaid observation, discussion and
considering the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its
decision in the case of R. Hemalatha (supra), I am of the view that
the suit for specific performance in relation to unregistered
agreement to sale is maintainable.
9. As such, no other submissions made by the learned
advocate Mr. Patel for the appellant touching the factual aspects
of the case, then I need not trouble myself to go into such aspect,
albeit, it is remained undisputed that part performance is already
performed by the plaintiffs by paying Rs.1,51,00,000/- to the
defendant and execution of above referred unregistered
agreement to sale is not disputed by the defendant. The
plaintiffs have shown their readiness and willingness to perform
their part of the contract. If it be so, I am of the view that there is
no error committed by the trial Court while granting injunction in
favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for in a suit filed by plaintiffs on
strength of unregistered agreement to sale.
10. Its required to be noted that the trial Court has already
framed the issues on the day of allowing impugned application as
plaintiffs and defendant, both are senior citizens. It is expected
from the parties to co-operate with the trial Court whereby the
suit can be expedited and may be adjudicated within reasonable
time. It is also made clear that the trial shall examine suit on its
own merit as per evidence coming forth on the record of the suit
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/239/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/01/2025
undefined
without being influenced by observations made either in the
impugned order or this judgement.
CONCLUSION
11. With the aforesaid observations, reasons and findings, I
am of the view that suit for specific performance of an
unregistered agreement to sale is maintainable when its breach
has been complained by the plaintiff.
11.1. Further, there is no error committed by the trial Court
while granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
11.2. There is no interference required of this Court while
exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 rule-1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as there is no fault found in the
impugned judgement and order.
12. Thus, there is no merits in the appeal, which requires to be
dismissed. The Appeal from Order is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
13. Civil Application is also disposed of.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SALIM/
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 02:39:30 IST 2025
