Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

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

Similar News