Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

Unregistered Agreements Admissible in Specific Performance Suits: Patna High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra, has upheld the admissibility of unregistered agreements in suits for specific performance. The judgement delivered on November 24, 2023, reaffirms the principles governing the interpretation of unregistered documents in legal proceedings related to the sale of immovable property.

The case, Involving a dispute over an unregistered contract for the sale of property, witnessed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court’s rejection of an application for dismissal of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The petitioners contested the validity of an unregistered contract for sale, which was central to the dispute.

Justice Mishra, in his ruling, emphasized the importance of unregistered documents in legal proceedings, stating, “even where the sale agreement is not registered, the document can be received as evidence for considering the relief of specific performance.” This observation underlines the court’s position on the significant but limited role of unregistered agreements in specific performance suits.

Further, the judgement clarified the interpretation of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, highlighting that while an unregistered agreement to sell is admissible as evidence in specific performance suits, it does not extend the protections offered under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The court’s decision to uphold the trial court’s judgement and proceed with the suit marks a pivotal stance in the legal landscape, particularly concerning property transactions and civil procedure. Advocates Awadhesh Prasad Sinha and Deepak Kumar, representing the petitioners and the opposite parties respectively, presented their arguments, which were integral to the court’s comprehensive evaluation of the case.

Date of Decision: November 24, 2023

Musmat Shanti Devi and Others vs Lallu Ram Son of Ganga Ram and Others

Latest Legal News