9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties on 17.2.2010, in respect of property situated in Ward No.32, P.H. No.22, B.No.177, R.N.M. Chhindwara-1. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants. 2. The trial Court framed issues relevant to the relief claimed in the suit. As regards the issue whether the suit agreement was executed between the parties, the same has been answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Even the issue of readiness and willingness has been answered in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record has also noticed that the defendants have only questioned the value of the property in the entire cross examination and not the factum of execution of the agreement or about their commitment to transfer the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the said agreement of the plaintiff. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the trial Court is in the teeth of Supreme Court's decision in the case of S. Kaladevi Vs. V. R. Somasundaram and others 2010 (3) MPLJ 500. According to the appellant, this decision was pressed into service before the trial Court but the trial Court has failed to analyse the same, though directly on the point and in favour of the appellant. Further, as the cross objection has been filed by the defendant limited to the direction to refund the earnest money amount alongwith interest and costs of the suit, no other issue arises for consideration of this Court; and that if the appellant succeeds in questioning the erroneous view taken by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, decree of specific performance on the basis of such agreement cannot be granted. This view taken by the Trial Court is in the teeth of the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaladevi (supra). This very contention has been negatived by the Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 16 of the said decision, in particular, which read thus:- "11. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required 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 immov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment which requires registration under Section 17 and which is not admissible for want of registration to prove a gift or mortgage or sale or lease is nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the possession of the person who holds under it......" This Court then culled out the following principles:- "1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4. A collat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908. The Court went to observe that admission of an unregistered sale deed by the Court in such cases would be in consonance with the proviso appended to Section 49 of the Act of 1908. Considering this decision, the view taken by the trial Court on the issue under consideration will have to be overturned. The reason why the trial Court has not adverted to this Supreme Court decision has remained unexplained. We need not dilate on that matter as we have no hesitation in accepting the argument of the appellant that the sole basis on which the relief claimed by the appellant in the suit for specific performance has been rejected c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration was to be confirmed. As indicated earlier, the suit deserves to be decreed in its entirety by granting relief of specific performance as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. ORDER 13. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside. Instead, the suit bearing No. 22-A/2012 filed by the appellant is decreed and the relief of specific performance, as prayed, is granted on condition that the appellant/plaintiff shall deposit the balance/outstanding agreement amount, if already not deposited, alongwith interest on such amount at the rate of 12% per annum (which is commensurate with the Nationalized Bank lending rate) from the date of the suit to the date of the decree and in addition fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
