Unregistered Document Affecting Immovable Property May Be Received As Evidence Of Contract In Specific Performance Suit: Supreme Court
The Appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against the order upholding the dismissal of the application seeking permission to place on record an agreement of sale.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supeme Court
The Supreme Court has explained that as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of a collateral transaction.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the order passed by the Madras High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed against the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the appellant seeking permission to place on record a document dated January 1,2000.
The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, “Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the prayer of the appellant in the interlocutory application falls under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act which provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The proviso also enables the said document to be received in evidence of a collateral transaction.”
Advocate B Karunakaran represented the Appellant.
Factual Background
The case as set up by the appellant was that based on an agreement of sale dated January 1, 2000, the respondent agreed to sell his property and also put the appellant in possession of the property. In furtherance of the said transaction, the appellant also paid the consideration. However, as the respondent was not taking any steps to execute the sale deed, he was compelled to institute a suit for specific performance of the agreement and also for a permanent injunction.
Pending disposal of the suit, the appellant filed an interlocutory application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for bringing on record and marking the document dated January 1, 2000. In the said application, the appellant averred that for genuine reasons, he was unable to produce the said document, which got mixed up with other documents. He averred that a photocopy of the said document was anyway enclosed with the plaint. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. The High Court in Revision held that the document was unstamped and unregistered and could not be brought on record. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to the judgment in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram (2010), wherein it has been held that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance. The Bench took note of the fact that the document dated January 1, 2000, was referred to and a photocopy of the said document was filed along with the plaint.
“It is the case of the appellant that the document sought to be brought on record is intended only to be used as a proof of the oral agreement of sale and that it is permitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant can be permitted to introduce the said document dated 01.01.2000”, the Bench held.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench also made it clear that it would be also open for the respondent/defendant to raise and contest the relevancy and validity of the document as are permissible in law.
Cause Title: Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 652)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates B Karunakaran, Goviganesan, AOR Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocates Shruti Vaibhav, Shubham Dubey
