An unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible as evidence in a permanent injunction suit, the Supreme Court has ruled. In an order delivered on September 23, 2022, the apex court said that such a document can be used for collateral purposes, but not as evidence in a suit seeking specific performance.
In the case, the original plaintiff instituted a suit before the trial court for permanent injunction only on the basis on an unregistered agreement to sell, dated March 23, 1996, written on Rs 10 stamp paper.
“The plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance,” a bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari said while passing in order the Balram Singh versus Kelo Devi case.
Aware of the fact that he might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of an unregistered agreement, the plaintiff opted for “clever drafting” by filing a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only.
“The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and, therefore, on such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get the relief by clever drafting,” the Bench said.
The SC order sets aside an Allahabad High Court order in which it had decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
“The learned first appellate court as well as the high court have committed a grave error in passing a decree for permanent injunction and dismissing the counter-claim… (both the courts) have not properly appreciated the fact that the suit filed by the original plaintiff was only for permanent injunction and she by adopting a clever drafting did not seek the relief for specific performance of agreement to sell as she was well aware that she would not succeed in the suit for specific performance on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell,” the SC Bench said.
An alumna of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Dhenkanal, Sunita Mishra brings over 16 years of expertise to the fields of legal matters, financial insights, and property market trends. Recognised for her ability to elucidate complex topics, her articles serve as a go-to resource for home buyers navigating intricate subjects. Through her extensive career, she has been associated with esteemed organisations like the Financial Express, Hindustan Times, Network18, All India Radio, and Business Standard.
In addition to her professional accomplishments, Sunita holds an MA degree in Sanskrit, with a specialisation in Indian Philosophy, from Delhi University. Outside of her work schedule, she likes to unwind by practising Yoga, and pursues her passion for travel.
[email protected]
Related Posts
RERA: The final hope of home buyers?.
Amendments to IBC give home buyers primacy with banks; gives status of ‘secured financial creditors’ to home buyers.
Notarised sale deed can’t be used to claim immovable property: NCLAT Delhi.
Can you pay for an agricultural plot in cash and claim tax deductions?.
Loan recovery: What happens when buyers cancel booking over project delays?.
Mutation does not decide property title status: Uttarakhand HC.
