Transfer Of Property Act | Unregistered Sale Deed Admissible As Evidence For Considering Relief Of Specific Performance: Patna HC

Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra observed, “It is clear from the above that even where the sale agreement is not registered, the document can be received as evidence for considering the relief of specific performance and the inadmissibility will confine itself only to the protection sought for under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.”

The above decision was given in the context of dismissing a Civil Revision challenging the Trial Court's order, which had rejected a petition to dismiss the plaint.

Musmat Shanti Devi, the petitioner, argued that the plaint should be dismissed since it relied on an unregistered sale deed, allegedly contravening Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act).

The Respondent initiated legal proceedings by filing a specific performance of a sale deed against the Petitioners.

In response, the Petitioners submitted a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), requesting the rejection of the plaint. The primary contention of the Petitioners was that the basis of the suit rested on an unregistered sale deed, thus contravening Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908.

According to the Petitioners, this non-compliance with the registration requirement rendered the suit legally untenable. Despite the Petitioners' arguments, the Trial Court dismissed their petition. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Petitioners decided to challenge the order by approaching the High Court. They filed a Civil Revision petition, seeking the High Court's intervention and reconsideration of the Trial Court's ruling.

The Court placed reliance on the case of Kum. Geetha Vs. Nanjundaswamy & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407 whereby the Apex Court had reiterated the principle that a plaint should only be rejected if it fails to disclose a cause of action.

Upon such reading, the Court said, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. must fail, rather, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected.

Additionally, the Court observed, “At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the correctness of the averments, except to state that the plaintiff has to discharge the burden of proving his case. Insofar as the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is concerned, the court will proceed only that far, to examine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and no further.”

“The genuineness, validity and binding nature of document will have to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage after the parties adduce oral and documentary evidence,” the Court added while dismissing the Civil Revision.

The Court directed the trial Court to adjudicate the suit on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observation made in the judgment.

Counsel/s: For the Petitioners: Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha, Advocate

Counsel/s For the O.Ps. : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Musmat Shanti Devi & Anr vs. Lallu and Ors

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 140

Case No.: Civil Revision No.31 of 2023