Document relied upon must be registered document to avail benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court Document relied upon must be a registered document to avail benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Background
The petitioner entered into an Agreement to Sell with one Ravinder Kumar Chugh (now deceased) for purchase of one shop on the ground floor of the building for the sum of Rs.7,20,000/-. It is stated that the possession of the said property was not handed over to him because the family of Ravinder Kumar Chugh (since deceased) had entered into a collaboration agreement with a builder named M/s Rock Contractors Private Limited and that the said Rock Contractors Private Limited did not construct the said premises.
According to the petitioner, the petitioner entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the said Ravinder Kumar Chugh for purchase of 200 sq. ft. in B-43, from where a chemist shop in the name of M/s R K Pharma was being run. The MoU notes that the vacant possession of the property has been handed over to the petitioner.
Arguments
The petitioner contended that he had entered into an Agreement to Sell for purchasing 145 sq. ft. of B-43, to the consideration of Rs.7,20,000/-. He urged that the possession of the property could not be handed over because the property was under construction. An MoU was entered into between the petitioner and Ravinder Kumar Chugh for which he had entered into an collaboration agreement with one M/s Rock Contractors Private Limited.
Richa Kapoor, ASC, contended that the petitioner was asked to produce the documents and he instead of producing the documents, filed a complaint. She submitted that a third complaint was filed by the petitioner. Then a fourth complaint was given against the Investigating Officer.
She argued that other than an unstamped and unregistered MoU, there is nothing to show that the petitioner was in possession of the property.
Decision
The single judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the MoU is as vague as it can be. Apart from the fact that it does not reveal the amount of consideration, the description of the area whose possession was handed over has not been mentioned in the MoU and there is no schedule attached to the MoU.
The court stated that none of the documents establishes the possession of the petitioner. The MoU is not registered. It does not contain any witnesses and it does not even have a schedule describing the property whose possession has been given to the petitioner. The MoU does not show the total amount of consideration. The electricity bills, MCD tax receipts and details of bank accounts where the rent is being deposited has not been supplied.
The court further added that it is well settled that in order to give benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the document relied upon must be a registered document. Any unregistered document cannot be looked into by the court and cannot be relied upon or taken into evidence in view of Section 17(1A) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act. Thus, benefit of Section 53A could have been given to the respondent, if and only if the alleged Agreement to Sell cum receipt satisfied the provisions of Section 17(1) A of the Registration Act.
The court while dismissing the petition held that the present petition looks like an attempt by the petitioner to get the possession of the property and to get over the limitation for filing the suit which disables him to file a suit for specific performance for the MoU.
Case title: Joginder Tuli v/s State NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(CRL) 1006/2020 & CRL.M.A. 8649/2020
