LexS. KALADEVI versus V.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 515 S. KALADEVI v. V.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3192 of 2010) APRIL 12, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] A B Registration Act, 1908: s.49, proviso - Unregistered sale deed is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance of the contract - Evidence Act, 1872 - Specific C performance - Transfer of property Act, 1882. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was whether the courts below erred in holding that an unregistered sale. deed was not 0 admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The Trial Court erred in not admitting the E unregistered sale deed in evidence in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the High Court ought to have corrected the said error by setting aside the order of the trial court. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required F to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting G immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for · specific performance or as evidence of any collateral 515 H 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 4 S.C.R. A transaction not required to be e1ffected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and more could b1! admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific B performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as-an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unrE~gistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evid,ence of a completed c sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of 1m oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Sectioni 49 of 1908 Act. By admission of an unregistered sale deed in evidence in a 0 suit for specific performance as evidence of contract. none of the provisions of 1908 Ac:t is affected; rather court acts in consonance with p1r.oviso appended to Section 49of1908 Act. [Paras 8, 11, 16] (519-C-D; 521-A- E; 525-B] E KB. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development F Consultant Limited (2008) 8 SCC 564, relied on. Ka/avakurti Venkata Subbaiah v. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy (1999) 7 SCC 114, referred to. Case Law Refernnce: (2008) 8 sec 564 (1999) 1 sec 114 relied on referred 1to Para 12 Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. G 3192 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.11.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P .(PD) No. 261 of 2008. K.V. Vishwanathan, B. Rajunath, Vijay Kumar for the H Appellant. S. KALADEVI v. V.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ORS. 517 T.S.R. Venkatramana, G.S. Mani, R. Satish for the A Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. LODHA,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The short question is one of admissibility of an , unregistered sale deed in a suit for specific performance of the contract. B 3. The appellant and the respondents are plaintiff and c defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the suit presented in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. The plaintiff in the suit claimed for the reliefs of directing the defendants to execute a fresh sale deed with regard to the suit property in pursuance of an agreement for sale dated 0 27.02.2006 on or before the date that may be fixed by the court and failing which execution of the sale deed by the court. Sh~ also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 4. According to the plaintiff, 1st defendant for himself, as the guardian father of 3rd defendant and 2nd defendant jointly entered into an oral agreement with her on 27.02.2006 to sell E the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,83,000/-. It was agreed that the sale deed, in pursuance of the oral agreement F for sale, would be executed and re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.