Unregistered document-sale agreement not admissible in permanent injunction Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

The Supreme Court decided on Friday that a document or agreement to sell that has not been registered is not admissible as evidence in a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction.

The appeal against the impugned judgement and order of the Allahabad High Court, by which the High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the decision of the first appellate Court, was being heard by the bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari.

In this instance, the respondent filed an original lawsuit with the trial court seeking an injunction that would last forever.

On the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell, the aforementioned lawsuit was brought. The initial plaintiff requested a long-term injunction preventing the defendant from interfering with her ownership of the subject property.

The appellant filed a counterclaim in the aforementioned lawsuit asking for the decree of possession. The trial court dismissed the original plaintiff's lawsuit, declined to issue a permanent injunction, and granted the defendant's counterclaim on the grounds that the plaintiff could not establish the existence of the sale agreement.

The trial court's ruling and order were overturned by the first appellate court, which then ordered the defendant to file a lawsuit for a permanent injunction.

The bench took notice of the fact that the initial plaintiff filed a lawsuit, asking for merely a ruling of permanent injunction, which was based on the purchase agreement. However, it must be noted that the sale agreement was written on 10-rupee stamp paper and was not registered. As a result, an unregistered document or agreement to sell cannot be used as evidence.

According to the Supreme Court, because the agreement to sell was not registered, "the plaintiff might not succeed in gaining the remedy of particular performance of such agreement to sell. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a complaint simplicitor for merely a permanent injunction. Unregistered documents may, in some circumstances, be used and/or taken into consideration for collateral purposes. However, the plaintiff is unable to obtain the relief indirectly that they would not otherwise be able to in a lawsuit for substantive relief, in this example, the relief for particular performance. Because the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and no decree for specific performance could have been issued on such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, the plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek the substantive relief of such specific performance of the agreement to sell. Clever drafting cannot grant the plaintiff relief.

Given the foregoing, the bench upheld the appeal and revoked the contested decree.

Balram Singh

Kelo Devi