MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Holds Unregistered Agreement to Sell Admissible as Evidence in Suit for Specific Performance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that an unregistered Agreement to Sell can be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The decision came in the case of R. Hemalatha v. Kashturi, in which the appellant challenged the High Court's order allowing the respondent's revision application.

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated September 10, 2013. The trial court had held that the unregistered agreement was inadmissible as evidence, citing the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act No.29 of 2012, which made the registration of agreements for the sale of immovable property valued at Rs.100/- and above compulsory.

The appellant argued that the agreement could not be admitted as evidence due to its non-registration. However, the High Court relied on the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, which allows unregistered documents affecting immovable property, required to be registered, to be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance.

Analyzing the provisions of the Registration Act, the Supreme Court observed that the proviso to Section 49 permits the admission of unregistered documents in certain circumstances. Noting that the unregistered agreement fell within the ambit of this proviso, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that it correctly applied the law.

The judgment emphasized that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act of 2012, which made the registration of agreements compulsory, did not include a corresponding amendment to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the Court held that the unregistered agreement could be accepted as evidence in a suit for specific performance.

Date of Decision: April 10, 2023

HEMALATHA     vs KASHTHURI

Latest Legal News