Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17(1A), Proviso to s.49 – Specific Relief Act, 1877 – Chapter-II – Suit for specific performance – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Admissibility in evidence – Held: As per proviso to s.49, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the 1877 Act, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject to s.17(1A) of the Registration Act – In the present case, it is not the case on behalf of either of the parties that Agreement to Sell in question would fall under the category of document as per s.17(1A), Registration Act – Therefore, High Court rightly held relying upon proviso to s.49 that the unregistered Agreement to Sell in question shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of s.49 – Appeal fails – Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2012 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.53, 53A – Specific Relief.
Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(1)(g) – Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2012 – Effect of – Discussed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 By Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, Section 17(1)(g) has been inserted and “explanation” to Section 17(2) has been omitted. Thus, on and after the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, as per Section 17(1)(g), instrument of agreement relating to sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/and upwards is required to be registered compulsorily. However, despite the same and despite the “explanation” to sub-section
(2) of Section 17 has been omitted, there is no corresponding amendment made to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Thus, as per proviso to Section 49, an unregistered document affecting the immovable property and required by Registration Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. [Paras 8-10][843-F-H; 844E-F]
1.2 At this stage, the primary statement of objects and reasons to the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, is also required to be referred to and considered. The primary statement of objects and reasons seem to suggest that amendment has been introduced by the State of Tamil Nadu bearing in mind the loss to the exchequer as public were executing the documents relating to sale of immovable property etc. on white paper or on stamp paper of nominal value. The proviso to Section 49 came to be inserted vide Act No.21 of 1929 and thereafter, Section 17(1A) came to be inserted by Act No. 48 of 2001 with effect from 24.09.2001 by which the documents containing contracts to transfer or consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 of the Transfer of Properties Act is made compulsorily to be registered if they have been executed on or after 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then there shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 53A. So, the exception to the proviso to Section 49 is provided under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. Otherwise, the proviso to Section 49 with respect to the documents other than referred to in Section 17(1A) shall be applicable. [Paras 11, 12][844-F-H; 845-A-B]
1.3 Under the circumstances, as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. It is not the case on behalf of either of the parties that the document/ Agreement to Sell in question would fall under the category of document as per Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly observed and held relying upon proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act that the unregistered document in question namely unregistered Agreement to Sell in question shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of Section 49. Therefore, the present appeal fails. [Paras 13, 14][845C-F] Dayal Singh vs. Indar Singh, (1926) 24 LW 396 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.