Madras High Court
N.Indira vs M.Srinivasan on 1 December, 2023
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
S.A.No.687 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.687 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.13827 of 2021
N.Indira ... Appellant
Vs.
1. M.Srinivasan
2. Minor.Sneha
3. Minor.Tharun
4. Manjula
5. The Executive Engineer,
Hosur Town, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2021 in A.S.No.36 of 2018
passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri,
reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2017 made in
O.S.No.82 of 2013 by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri.
For appellant : M/s.V.Sakkarapani
J.Thilagavathy
For respondents
For R1 to R4 : Mr.N.Manoharan
For R5 : No appearance
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.687 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit in O.S.No.82 of 2013 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, whose suit for
permanent injunction was decreed by learned District Munsif,
Dharmapuri and reversed in an appeal in A.S.No.36 of 2018 by the
learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, is the appellant
before this Court.
2. The brief facts which have culminated into the filing of the
above second appeal are set out hereinbelow with the parties referred
to in the same litigative status as before the Trial Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property belongs
to the 5th defendant, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur Unit. The
5th defendant had allotted the property to the first defendant. The first
defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and a sale
agreement dated 13.10.2008 was entered into between the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the defendants.
2.2. Under the said sale agreement, the first defendant had
agreed and offered to sell the suit property for a total consideration of
Rs.13,00,000/- and an advance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid and
the balance amount was payable under 51 monthly instalments of
Rs.9641/- per month to the fifth defendant towards the instalments
due to the 5th defendant. It was agreed that on the completion of the
above said payment, the 1st defendant would execute the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff.
2.3. The plaintiff had been put in possession of the suit
property pursuant to the sale agreement dated 13.10.2008 and she had
made improvements in the suit property and was paying all the taxes
in respect of the same. It is the further case of the plaintiff that she had
paid the instalments from 07.05.2008 to 20.07.2012 to the tune of a
sum of Rs.4,18,524/- to the fifth defendant with the knowledge of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendants 1 to 4. Therefore, as per the agreement of sale, the plaintiff
was due to pay a balance of Rs.81,476/- to the defendant, which
amount the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay and have the sale deed
executed.
2.4. The plaintiff would further submit that she had
approached the defendants 1 to 4 several times to pay the balance sale
consideration and execute the sale deed. However, every time when
the plaintiff had approached the defendants 1 to 4, they denied to
perform their part of contract and tried to create encumbrance over the
suit property. Therefore, she had issued a legal notice dated
04.10.2012 calling upon the defendants 1 to 4 to receive the balance
sale consideration and execute the sale deed. The defendants 1 to 4
who received notice, have not come forward to perform their part of
contract. Similarly, the 5th defendant has not sent any reply to the
notice. The plaintiff is the second wife of the first defendant. The
second defendant is the first wife and defendants 3 and 4 are the son
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and daughter of the defendants 1 and 2.
2.5. The plaintiff apprehends that once the sale deed is
executed in favour of the first defendant by the fifth defendant then,
they would rush to alienate the suit property in favour of a 3rd party.
Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for permanent
injunction against the defendants.
2.6. The first defendant has filed a written statement which
was adopted by the defendants 3 and 4. The defendants had denied the
allegations contained in the plaint. It is the case of the defendants that
the first defendant had neither executed a sale agreement dated
13.10.2008 in favour of the plaintiff nor received the advance amount
of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendants would submit that
there was no cause of action for filing this suit and the suit is liable to
be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.7. The fifth defendant had filed a written statement denying
the allegations contained in the plaint. The defendants would admit
the fact that the suit property belonged to the fifth defendant which
had been allotted to the first defendant by the fifth defendant on
19.03.2013 for a sum of Rs.9,13,900/- with a condition that a part of
the amount would be paid as advance within 11.04.2008 and the
remaining amount would be paid in instalments. Accordingly, the first
defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2,87,050/- till 19.03.2013. The fifth
defendant would submit that once the entire payment is made, the fifth
defendant would execute the sale deed in favour of the first defendant.
TRIAL COURT:
3. The learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, has framed the
issues and additional issues for consideration and has ultimately,
decreed the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
LOWER APPELLATE COURT:
4. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendants
1, 3 and 4 have filed an appeal in A.S.No.36 of 2018 on the file of the
Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri.
5. The learned Judge, on considering the evidence on record,
held that the plaintiff has not filed a suit for specific performance and
had only sought for the relief of permanent injunction to protect her
possession of the suit property.
6. The claim was made on the basis of the sale agreement
dated 13.10.2008 which was marked as Ex.A1, which, admittedly is
an unregistered document. Though the plaintiff claims that she was
put in possession of the property under this agreement of sale and
claims the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the
agreement of sale has not been registered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The learned Judge has considered the provisions of
Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and also taken note of the
provisions of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, which has been
amended vide Amendment Act, 2001, which clearly states that it was
mandatory that all the documents containing a contract to transfer the
consideration of any immovable property for the purpose of Section
53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, shall be registered and if
documents are not registered, they would have no effect for the
purpose of the said Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
8. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court had clearly held that
the plaintiff cannot claim injunction on the basis of the unregistered
sale agreement. Further, the lower Appellate Court has also observed
that the plaintiff had filed a petition under Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. to
subsequently file a suit for specific performance which was allowed,
but, she has not taken any step whatsoever in this regard and this
would clearly show that the plaintiff is neither ready nor willing to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
perform her part of the contract. On these two grounds, the first appeal
was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set
aside.
9. Challenging the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
10. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
DISCUSSION:
11. The appeal lies within a very narrow compass, whether the
plaintiff can seek to have her possession protected on the basis of an
unregistered document. Considering the provisions of Section 17(1A)
of the Registration Act and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property
Act and the fact that the plaintiff has come to the Court seeking to
protect her possession on the basis of the unregistered document, this
document cannot be received as evidence in the light of the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Balram Singh vs
Kelo Devi reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 800. In this judgment, it
was held that the plaintiff cannot get the relief of permanent
injunction on the basis of an unregistered document/sale agreement.
The lower Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and I see no
reason to differ with this finding of the Lower Appellate Court. The
plaintiff has not made out a question of law and further the Lower
Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal on a question of land.
Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed. Consequently,
the connected C.M.P. stands closed. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
01.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
ssa
To
1. The District Munsif, Dharmapuri.
2.The Additional Sub Judge, Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
P.T.ASHA, J.,
ssa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
