The Patna High Court has held that even when a sale agreement is not registered, such a document can be received as evidence for considering the relief of specific performance, and the inadmissibility will confine itself only to the protection sought under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'TPA').
Brief Facts of the Case:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner/defendant no. 1 Shanti Devi has collected Rs. 37 lacs, and in exchange, Manoj Pandey, the petitioner/defendant no. 2, has been granted ownership of the land and given the guarantee to complete a registered sale deed. the petitioners came to know that defendant no.1 had sold the land to defendant No. 2, Manoj Pandey, after receiving clearance from the Consolidation Officer in this respect. Since defendant no. 1 has neither refunded the amount nor completed the sale deed, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for relief of specific performance of contract based on a deed of contract for sale. Furthermore, the Petitioners filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint given Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1908 Act') which provides mandatory registration of documents containing contract to transfer of immovable property for consideration. The trial court rejected the said application which resulted in the present suit.
Contentions of the Parties:
The Petitioner contended that the order passed by the trial court is improper and deserves to be set aside as it is against sub-section (1A) of Section 17 of the 1908 Act. It was also submitted that no cause of action arose and the suit filed is a complete abuse of the process of law.
The Respondent submitted that the trial court was right in rejecting the petition of the Petitioner. It was also submitted that it is evident from reading the averments in the plaint that it contains the necessary material facts to reveal a cause of action and give rise to triable issues. At last, it was submitted that it is possible to accept an unregistered document about immovable property as proof of the contract under specific performance.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court observed that even in cases where the sale agreement is not registered, it may be accepted as proof for evaluating a specific performance relief, and its inadmissibility will be limited to the protections provided by Section 53-A of the TPA.
It was furthermore held that the plaintiff has the responsibility of establishing his case, and the Court is not concerned with the accuracy of the averments at this stage of the case. Regarding the application made under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., the Court will merely look at whether the plaint reveals a cause of action and no further.
It was noted that once the parties have presented both oral and written evidence, the authenticity, legality, and binding nature of the document must be decided upon at the appropriate stage.
Based on these considerations, the Court was of the view that the order passed by the trial court requires no interference.
The Decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Court dismissed the civil revision.
Case Title: Musmat Shanti Devi and Anr. vs. Lallu Ram and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case no.: Civil Revision No.31 of 2023 in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.770 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioners: Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha, Advocate
Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
