A single judge bench of Justice Ajit Kumar of Allahabad HC dismissed the petition and held that an unregistered agreement for sale has only evidentiary value for collateral purposes and what cannot have an evidentiary value, need not be proved being worth paper. This court further reiterated that no right could flow from an unregistered agreement for sale.
Facts:
The petitioner by means of this misc. petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution had challenged the order dated 20.09.2012, whereby, his application to call for a handwriting expert to prove signature of the plaintiff-landlord upon unregistered agreement for sale executed on 06.09.2012 which admittedly plaintiff questioned as a forged document, had been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once an agreement for sale has come to be executed between the landlord and tenant, the tenant acquires the status of co-owner of the property and therefore, can resist possession and a suit for ejectment therefore, would not lie. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Imambi v. Azeeza Bee, 2001 (1) ARC 146.
Observations of the Court
This Court after the perusal of the judgments cited by petitioner find that the status of a tenant would change in the event of an execution of an agreement of sale, which is required to be registered one in law to derive any title upon such instrument. The court relied in that case upon earlier judgment of Abdul Alim v. Sheikh Jamal Uddin Ansari & Others, (1998) 1 SCC 683 wherein half share of the demised shop was purchased by tenant under the registered sale deed and it is in that circumstances, the court had held that the status of tenant would change to a status of co sharer in the property. There is no such case of the petitioner in the case in hand except that he is banking upon the rights under an unregistered agreement of sale.
In view of this court, an unregistered agreement for sale has only evidentiary value for collateral purposes, where a right to possession can be resisted against a third party, but no such right can accrue against the landlord who has filed the suit for ejectment to set up a plea that he has executed an agreement for sale of the property in question. What cannot have an evidentiary value, need not be proved being worth paper. Therefore, this court denied interfering by exercising their jurisdiction under Article 227.
Decision:
The petition was dismissed being devoid of any flaw that seeks interference of this court by exercising their jurisdiction under Article 227.
Case: Asgar and Another vs Vimla and Another
Citation: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10208 of 2022
Coram: Justice Ajit Kumar
Dated: 01.12.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
