You are on page 1of 4

Madras High Court P.A.Thangarajan vs G.Annadurai on 7 January, 2011 DATE: 7.1.2011. CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(PD)No.

3035 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 P.A.Thangarajan Petitioner vs. 1. G.Annadurai 2. Gokulakannan Respondents Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 27.1.2010 in I.A.No.1042 of 2008 in O.S.No.284 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruppur. For petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Sriram For respondents: Mr.N.Manokaran ORDER The first defendant in O.S.No.284 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance directing defendants 1 to 7 to execute and register the sale deed as per document dated 30 .3.2005. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs as seen in the plaint is that th e first defendant agreed to sell the property of the plaintiffs for a considerat ion of Rs.2,50,000/= and the entire sale consideration was paid by the first pla intiff and on 30.3.2005, a sale deed was executed on Rs.20/= stamp paper and it was agreed that the sale deed would be presented for registration by paying the balance stamp duty on an auspicious day fixed by the first plaintiff and both th e parties agreed for the same. Thereafter, the first defendant refused to regist er the sale deed and therefore, the suit was filed. The first defendant filed I. A.No.1042 of 2008 under order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Proced ure to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not show any cause o f action and it is barred by limitation. 3. It is stated by the first defendant in his counter affidavit that even accord ing to the plaint, a contract was completed by execution of the sale deed and th erefore, the plaintiff cannot file a suit for specific performance and he has to work out his remedy as per the provisions of the Registration Act by presenting the document for compulsory registration and the civil court has no jurisdictio n to direct registration of the document. It is his further case that the allege

d sale deed was dated 30.3.2005 and the suit was filed in the year 2008 and ther efore, it is also clearly barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Regi stration Act. 4. The application filed by the revision petitioner for rejection of the plaint was dismissed by the Trial Court and as against the same, this revision is filed . 5. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner su bmitted that even according to the plaint allegation, a sale deed was executed o n 30.3.2005 on a stamp paper and admittedly, it was not written on duly stamped papers and now, they want to enforce that document to get a relief of specific p erformance and that document cannot be received in evidence as per the provision s of the Indian Stamp Act as it was not duly stamped. According to the learned S enior Counsel, the document dated 30.3.2005 cannot be construed as a sale agreem ent and it is an executed contract and only remedy available to the person is to present the document for compulsory registration as per the provisions of the R egistration Act and that has to be done within the period stipulated by the Regi stration act and having waited for more than the period prescribed for presentin g the document, a suit for specific performance cannot be entertained and accord ing to him, there is nothing to be enforced as per the document dated 30.3.2005 as it is an executed contract. 6. On the other hand, Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondents/plaint iffs submitted that though the plaintiffs could have taken proceedings under the Registration Act for compulsory registration of the document, it is also open t o them to file a suit for specific performance and the civil court has got juris diction and relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention:- i ) KALAVAKURTI VENKATA SUBBAIAH v. BALA GURAPPAGARI GURUVI REDDY (AIR 1999 SC 295 8) ii) S.KALADEVI v. V.R.SOMASUNDARAM ((2010) 5 SCC 401) iii)INDIRANI @ VEDANAYAKI v. CHITRA (2008(3) TLNJ 398). 7. According to me, the court below rightly dismissed the application filed by t he revision petitioner. In the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 2958, it has bee n held as follows:- "The analysis of the provisions of Section 77 of the Registr ation Act made by us above would indicate that it would apply only if a matter i s pertaining to registration of a document and not for a comprehensive suit as i n the present case where the relief prayed for is directing the defendant to reg ister the sale deed dated July 2, 1979 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and if he so fails to get a registration in favour of the plaintiff for permanent injunction or in the alternative for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule mentioned property. The document has not been presented by the respondent to the Sub-Registrar at all for registration althoug h the sale deed is stated to have been executed by the appellant as he refuses t o cooperate with him in that regard. Therefore, various stages contemplated unde r Section 77 of the Act have not arisen in the present case at all. We do not th ink, in such a case when the vendor declines to appear before the Sub-Registrar, the situation contemplated under Section 77 of the Act would arise. It is only on presentation of a document the other circumstances would arise. The First App ellate Court rightly took the view that under Section 49 of the Act the sale dee d could be received in evidence to prove the agreement between the parties thoug h it may not itself constitute a contract to transfer the property. The said Cou rt noticed that there was an agreement to transfer the immovable property in the suit by the defendant to the plaintiff on the terms stated in the sale deed. Su ch an agreement to sell the immovable property in suit could be specifically enf orced under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, the First Appe llate Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff was alternatively entitled to

base his claim of specific performance on the plea of oral agreement to sell and , inasmuch as there are further reliefs sought for, it was a comprehensive suit including a relief for specific performance of a contract contained in the sale deed executed, but not registered and, therefore, held that such relief for spec ific performance could be granted." 8. In the judgment reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401, the judgment reported in AIR 19 99 SC 2958 = (1999) 7 SCC 114 was relied on and the Honourable Supreme Court lai d down the following principles " "1. A document required to be registered, if u nregistered is not admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration A ct. 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence for 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 trans action to effect which the law required registration. 4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effe cted by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and u pwards. 5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of i ts terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose." T o the aforesaid principles, one more principle may be added, namely, that a docu ment required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. 9. Therefore, from the Supreme Court judgments referred to above, a document, th at requires to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as pr oof of contract in a suit for specific performance. In the judgment reported in 2008 (3) TLNJ 398, this court has held that when two alternative remedies are av ailable to the plaintiff, one under the Registration Act and another before the civil court, the plaintiff is entitled to approach the civil court and there is no need to exhaust the remedy available under the Registration Act. 10. Therefore, in this case also, the plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for s pecific performance on the basis of the document dated 30.3.2005 and it cannot b e stated that the suit is barred by limitation or the plaint does not show any c ause of action. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the revisio n petitioner. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. ssk. To 1. The Principal Sub Judge, Tiruppur. 2. The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, High Court, Chennai ument-304636.asp#.UJdC12dk4x8 GOOGE SEARCH: IS UNREGISTERD DOCUMENT Unregistered arbitration, but stamped, agreements are valid: SC Sanjay K Singh Jul 22, 2011, 01.46am IST Tags: Supreme Court| New Delhi| Chandmari Tea Co| Arbitrator NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that the unregistered arbitration agreeme nts are valid and can be enforced for the purpose of the resolution of the dispu te between the parties. The apex court overruled a Guwahati High Hourt order whi ch had said that the arbitration proceedings cannot be initiated on the basis of an unregistered agreement. The court, however, said that if such deed is not duly stamped, it is not valid and cannot be acted upon by the arbitrator.

Ads by Google Sky News | LegalBreaking Legal News. Get your news as it happens www.skynewsara om Swissquote Forex TradingProviding comprehensive online and offline 24/7 trading solutions "Having regard to the proviso to section 49 of Registration Act read with Sectio n 16(1)(a) of the Act (Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996), an arbitration agr eement in an unregistered but compulsorily registrable document can be acted upo n and enforced for the purpose of dispute resolution by arbitration," said a ben ch comprising Justice RV Raveendran and Justice AK Patnaik in its judgement on W ednesday. The court said: "An arbitration agreement does not require registration under th e Registration Act. Even if it is found as one of the clauses in a contract or i nstrument, it is an independent agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, which is independent of the main contract or instrument." The bench allowed the appeal of SMS Tea Estates. It had came to the apex court s eeking order to appoint an arbitrator to sort out its dispute with the Chandmari Tea Co pertaining to the lease of two tea estates. It was opposed by the Chandmari Tea Co on the ground that the lease deed signed between the two was unregistered and therefore invalid. It had further said that such deed was also not duly stamped and therefore was invalid, unenforceable an d not binding. The high court had held that as the lease deed was not registered , no term of it can be relied upon for reference to arbitration. Aggrieved, the appellant had came to the apex court, which set aside the high co urt order. The apex court asked the high court to decide the issue of stamp duty , and if the document is duly stamped, then appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the law. Ads by Google Sobha Meritta Chennai1/2/3 BHK Luxury Int'l Apartments Your Dream Home Is Here. Hurry! LexisNexis Legal ResearchImprove the efficiency and accuracy of your legal resea rch