Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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