KALAVAKURTI VENKATA SUBBAIAH versus BALA GURAPPAGARI GURVI REDDY

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 05-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
KALAVAKURTI VENKATA SUBBAIAH 
A 
v. 
BALA GURAPPAGARI GURVI REDDY 
AUGUST 5, 1999 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Registration Act, 1908-Section 77-Specific Relief Act, 1963: Suit 
under-praying for registration of Sale deed alongwith relief for injunction or 
possession for immovable property-Whether suit lies under Section 77 of C 
Registration Act-Held, If a party is seeking not merely the registration of 
sale deed, but also recovery of possession and mesne profits or damages, a 
suit under Section 77 is not adequate. 
Section 49: Unregistered sale deed-Can be received in evidence to 
prove the agreement between the parties though it may not itself constitute D 
a contract to transfer the property-Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
A sale deed was duly executed in favour of the respondent by the 
- appellant, which could not be registered since the appellant refused to 
cooperate. Respondent without presenting the document for registration 
before Registrar filed a suit for specific performance seeking direction to E 
register a duly executed sale deed and for injunction or possession of the 
immovable property. The appellant orally asserted to have executed the sale 
deed. 
The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that suit was not F 
maintainable under Specific Relief Act and the remedy was available under 
section 77 of Registration Act. The appeal was allowed on the ground that 
in granting decree for specific performance section 77 of Registration Act 
will not come in the way. A second appeal and the review against the same 
was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. If a party seeking not merely the registration of sale deed, 
but also recovery of possession and mesne profits or damages, a suit under 
Section 77 is not adequate remedy. The provisions of Specific Relief Act and 
75 
G 
'H 
" 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A the Registration Act may to a certain extent cover the same field but so that 
one will not supersede the other. Where the stage indicated in Section 77 
of the Act has reached and no other relief except a direction for r~istration 
of the document is really asked for Section 77 of the Act may be an exclusive 
remedy. In other cases it has no application, inasmuch as a suit for specific 
B performance is of wider amplitude and is primarily one for enforcement of 
a contract and other consequential or further relief. [80-F; 80-E] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Manicka Gounder v. Elumalai Gounder, (1956) 2 MLJ 536 and Veeran 
Ambalam v. Vellaiammal, AIR (1960) Mad. 244, referred to. 
Ellammal v. Rangaswamy Gounder & Ors., 95 L.W. 546; Mathai v. 
Joseph:. AIR (1970) Ker. 261 and Veerappa Naidu v. Venkaiah, AIR (1961) 
A.P. 534, cited. 
1.2. In the case when the vendor declines to appear before the Sub-
Registrar the situation contemplated under Section 77 of the Registration 
Act would not arise. (81-A-B) 
2. Under section 49 of the Registration Act, the sale deed could be 
received in evidence to prove the agreement between the parties though it 
may not itself constitute a contract to transfer the property. Such an 
agreement to sell the immovable property in suit could be specifically enforced 
under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. (81~B-C) 
Ramachandra Naidu & Anr. v. Ramaiah Naidu, AIR (1969) Mad 418, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2194 of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11. 7 .88 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in S.A. No. 93 of 1986. 
R. Sundaravaradan, Ms. Santhi Narayanan and K. Ram Kumar for the 
Appellant. 
K. Subba Rao for A. Subba Rao for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. The respondent filed a suit for specific . 
performance seeking a direction to register the sale deed dated July 2, 1979 
,,. 
J. 
.. 
.., 
4 
-
-
K.V. SUBBAIAH v. B.G. GURVI REDDY [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
77 
., . 
[Exhibit A-6] and for injunction or possession of the immovable property A 
!eferred to therein. His case is that the appellant had duly executed the sale 
deed in his favour in respect of the suit premises for a sale consideration of 
Rs. 3,200 but the appellant did not get the document registered thereafter. The 
case set up by the appellant is that he signed sale deed dated July 2, 1979 
as a result of fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent taking advantage 
of the fact that he was an illiterate person. The trial court dismissed the sui
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.