The Supreme Court has held that the unregistered agreement to sell is admissible as evidence to prove contract in specific performance suit.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has observed that the document sought to be brought on record is intended only to be used as a proof of the oral agreement of sale and that it is permitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act. The appellant can be permitted to introduce the said document.
The appellant/assessee that on the basis of an agreement of sale, the department agreed to sell his property upon receiving part consideration of Rs. 5000 and also put the appellant in possession of the property.
Subsequently, the appellant alleged that the parties have agreed that the property should be sold at the rate of Rs. 550 per cent and in furtherance of the transaction the appellant also paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and is said to have paid balance consideration from time to time. However, as the respondent was not taking any steps for executing the sale deed, he was compelled to institute a suit for specific performance of the agreement and also for a permanent injunction.
The appellant filed an interlocutory application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for bringing on record and marking the document dated 01.01.2000.
In the application, the appellant averred that for genuine reasons he was unable to produce the said document, which got mixed up with other documents. He averred that a photocopy of the document was anyway enclosed with the plaint and therefore the respondent/defendant will not in any way be prejudiced if the prayer in the interlocutory application is allowed and the original of the document is received and marked.
The Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the reasons for not producing the original is not convincing and also that the said document was unstamped and unregistered and as such barred under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989, and that Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The while allowing the appeal held that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The proviso also enables the document to be received in evidence of a collateral transaction.
The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the contents of the document and it is also open for the respondent/defendant to raise and contest the relevancy and validity of the document as are permissible in law and it is for the Trial Court to consider the submissions and pass appropriate judgment/order as it considers appropriate.
Case Details
Case Title: Muruganandam Versus Muniyandi (Died)
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 6543 OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No(s). 10893 OF 2021
Date: May 08, 2025
Read More: Delhi ITAT Declares Summer Vacation: Know Dates
- Eicher Motors Receives Rs. 168.19 Crore GST Demand Notice - July 11, 2025
- Sameer Wankhede Bribery Probe –Bombay HC Frustrated At CBI’s Unending Procrastination And Repeated Adjournments – Extends Interim Protection In Plea To Quash FIR - July 11, 2025
- 13-Year Delay in Tax Appeal: ITAT Indore Accepts Commercial Pilot’s Plea, Orders Fresh Assessment - July 11, 2025
![PIL Filed Before Supreme Court Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma: Know Details [See PIL Copy]](https://www.jurishour.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/FIR-Justice-Yashwant-Verma.webp)
