Section 498A IPC | Asking Daughter-In-Law To Do Household Chores Like Washing Clothes & Utensils Does Not Amount To 'Cruelty': Bombay High Court Section 306 IPC | Instigation Can Be Inferred From Continued Harassment, Absence Of Suicide Note No Ground For Discharge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Gift Of Temple Inam Land Void Ab Initio, Incapable Of Government Sanction Or Valid Registration: Supreme Court Section 483 BNSS | Pursuing Parallel Remedies & Suppressing Rejection Of Interim Relief Amounts To Abuse Of Process; Uberrima Fides Essential For Bail: Supreme Court Suit For Possession Simpliciter Not Maintainable When Registered Sale Deed Casts Serious Cloud On Title; Declaration Or Cancellation Mandatory: Supreme Court Representation Of People Act | Private Complaint By Voter Maintainable For False Nomination Affidavit, Section 195 CrPC Bar Inapplicable: Supreme Court Gravity Of Allegations Cannot Eclipse Other Bail Considerations Or Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Detention: Supreme Court Contract Act | Agreement To Sell Not Enforceable Contract Prior To Conveyance Deed; State Can Re-Auction For Price Maximisation: Supreme Court Failure To Consider Incident Video Footage & Section 161 CrPC Witness Statements Vitiates Grant Of Bail: Supreme Court Section 125 CrPC | Adverse Finding Of Adultery Cannot Be Recorded Against Specifically Named Co-Adulterer Without Giving Opportunity Of Hearing: Allahabad High Court Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Pleadings To Correct Typographical Errors Should Be Allowed To Ensure True Facts Are Before Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Major Penalty Of Removal From Service Cannot Be Imposed Without Departmental Inquiry: Bombay High Court Quashes Order Under General Insurance Rules Section 482 CrPC | High Court Cannot Quash FIR When Allegations Of Forgery And Fraud Raise Disputed Questions Of Fact: Delhi High Court Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed In Entirety Merely Because Section 498A IPC Is Not Sustainable Due To Invalid Marriage: Calcutta High Court Section 138 NI Act | Arraigning Company As Accused Imperative To Prosecute Managing Director Or Signatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 14(6) DRC Act | 5-Year Bar On Eviction Inapplicable When Co-Owners Acquire Premises Inter Se Family Through Gift Deed: Delhi High Court Territorial Jurisdiction In Missing Person Cases | Court Can Direct CBI Probe If Journey Commenced Within Its Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Future Prospects Must Be Added In Permanent Disability Cases Even If Functional Disability Is Assessed Liberally: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registration Act | Registering Authority Lacks Power To Refuse Registration On Grounds Of Unapproved Layout Or Lack Of Title: Telangana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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