Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Parwan Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit for possession of Unit No.1C admeasuring 976 sq. ft. against the defendants, claiming ownership through a chain of conveyances. The original owner, Muktaben Sanghavi, had executed an unregistered conveyance of her entire property to Mehta and Kanakiya on 2nd January 1997, who in turn conveyed the suit property to the plaintiff by an unregistered deed on 31st October 2002. The defendants claimed rights through an unregistered agreement dated 14th September 1987 between Muktaben Sanghavi and Defendant No.3, converting tenancy into ownership, and a subsequent unregistered agreement dated 31st August 1992 between Defendant No.3 and Defendants 1 & 2 converting their tenancy into ownership. The court examined the validity of these unregistered documents. It held that under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, an agreement for sale of immovable property requires compulsory registration, and an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence to prove title. The court found that the plaintiff's claim of ownership was based on unregistered conveyances, which did not confer any valid title. Consequently, the plaintiff could not maintain a suit for possession against the defendants, who were in possession as tenants. The court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had no better title than the defendants.
Headnote
A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Unregistered Agreement for Sale - Admissibility - An unregistered agreement for sale of immovable property, which requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, is inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving title or claiming ownership. The court held that such an agreement cannot confer any right, title or interest in the property and cannot be used to defeat the rights of subsequent purchasers or tenants. (Paras 1-10) B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53A - Part Performance - Unregistered Agreement - The doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot be invoked to protect possession under an unregistered agreement for sale if the agreement is not duly registered and the transferee has not taken possession in part performance of the contract. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish any right to possession based on an unregistered conveyance. (Paras 1-10) C) Property Law - Title - Conveyance - The plaintiff claimed ownership through a chain of unregistered documents, including a conveyance from Muktaben Sanghavi to Mehta and Kanakiya and a subsequent conveyance to the plaintiff. The court held that these unregistered documents did not confer valid title, and the plaintiff could not maintain a suit for possession against the defendants who were tenants of the original owner. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an unregistered agreement for sale of immovable property can be used to prove title or claim ownership, and whether the plaintiff has a better title than the defendants based on such documents.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's unregistered conveyances did not confer valid title and the plaintiff could not maintain a suit for possession against the defendants.
Law Points
- Unregistered agreement for sale of immovable property is inadmissible in evidence
- Section 17 of Registration Act
- 1908
- Section 49 of Registration Act
- Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
