Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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