P.A. Thangarajan vs G. Annadurai and Gokulakannan

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The first Defendant in O.S. No. 284 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur is the revision Petitioner.

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 the first Defendant agreed to sell the property of the

Plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/= and the entire sale consideration was paid by the first Plaintiff 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 the parties agreed for the same. Thereafter, the first Defendant refused to register the sale

deed and therefore, the suit was filed. The first Defendant filed I.A. No. 1042 of 2008 under order VII Rule11(a) and (d) of the Code of CPC to

reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not show any cause of action and it is barred by limitation.

It is stated by the first Defendant in his counter affidavit that even according to the plaint, a contract was completed by execution of the sale

deed and therefore, 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 jurisdiction to direct registration of the

document. It is his further case that the alleged sale deed was dated 30.3.2005 and the suit was filed in the year 2008 and therefore, it is also

clearly barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Registration Act.

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.

Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel for the revision Petitioner submitted that even according to the plaint allegation, a sale deed

was executed on30.3.2005 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 performance and that document cannot be received in evidence as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act

as it was not duly stamped. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the document dated 30.3.2005 cannot be construed as a sale agreement 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 Registration Act and that has to be done within the period stipulated by the Registration act and having waited for more than the period

prescribed for presenting the document, a suit for specific performance cannot be entertained and according to him, there is nothing to been forced

as per the document dated 30.3.2005 as it is an executed contract.

On the other hand, Mr. N. Manoharan, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs submitted that though the plaintiffs could have taken

proceedings under the Registration Act for compulsory registration of the document, it is also open to them to file a suit for specific performance

and the civil court has got jurisdiction and relied open the following judgments in support of his contention:

i) Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah Vs. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy,

ii) S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram and Others,

iii) Indirani @ Vedanayaki v. Chitra 2008(3) TLNJ 398.

According to me, the court below rightly dismissed the application filed by the revision Petitioner. In the judgment reported in Kalavakurti

Venkata Subbaiah Vs. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy, , it has been held as follows:

The analysis of the provisions of Section 77 of the Registration Act made by us above would indicate that it would apply only if a matter is

pertaining to registration of a document and not for a comprehensive suit as in the present case where the relief prayed for is directing the

Defendant to register the sale deed dated July 2, 1979 in favor of the Plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and if he so fails to get a

registration in favor 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 although the sale deed is stated to

have been executed by the Appellant as he refuses to cooperate with him in that regard. Therefore, various stages contemplated u/s 77 of the Act

have not arisen in the present case a tall. We do not think, in such a case when the vendor declines to appear before the Sub-Registrar, the

situation contemplated u/s 77 of the Act would arise. It is only on presentation of a document the other circumstances would arise. The First

Appellate Court rightly took the view that u/s 49 of the Act the sale deed could be received in evidence to prove the agreement between the

parties though it may not itself constitute a contract to transfer the property. The said Court 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. Such an agreement to sell the immovable

property in suit could be specifically enforced under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, the First Appellate 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 specific performance could be granted.

In the judgment reported in S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram and Others, , the judgment reported in Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah Vs.

Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy, was relied on and the Honorable Supreme Court laid down the following principles

A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible in evidence u/s 49 of the Registration Act.

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.

A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.

A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected 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 upwards.

If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its 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.

To the aforesaid principles, one more principle may be added, namely, that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted

in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.

Therefore, from the Supreme Court judgments referred to above, a document, that requires to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in

evidence as proof 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 available 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.

Therefore, in this case also, the Plaintiff is entitled to file a suit for specific performance on the basis of the document dated 30.3.2005 and it

cannot be stated that the suit is barred by limitation or the plaint does not show any cause of action. Hence, I do not find any merit in the

contentions of the revision Petitioner.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.