Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.12.1990 entered into between the original plaintiff (since deceased, represented by his legal heirs) and the defendant. The agreement pertained to a vacant site measuring 100 feet by 78 feet for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000, with an earnest money of Rs. 25,000 paid. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant handed over title documents and put him in possession, but failed to execute the sale deed. The defendant denied the allegations and contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the High Court reversed the decision, dismissing the suit. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, holding that the agreement to sell was unregistered and therefore inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, as it required registration under Section 17(1A). Additionally, the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as evidenced by his own notice expressing inability to purchase due to non-measurement of property and non-formation of road. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree - Held that the plaintiff's notice admitting inability to purchase due to non-measurement of property and non-formation of road indicated lack of readiness and willingness (Paras 10-15).
B) Registration Act - Unregistered Agreement - Section 49 Registration Act, 1908 - An unregistered agreement to sell which requires registration under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act is not admissible in evidence for the purpose of seeking specific performance - Held that the agreement was inadmissible and the suit was liable to be dismissed (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an unregistered agreement to sell is admissible in evidence for the purpose of seeking specific performance, and whether the plaintiff had proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. The suit for specific performance stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- unregistered agreement
- admissibility
- Section 49 Registration Act
- 1908
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 2187 of 2011
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Mohammed Khaleel (D) Through LRs & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.
Remedy Sought
The appellant (original plaintiff) sought a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.12.1990, directing the respondent to execute the sale deed and deliver possession.
Filing Reason
The respondent failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving earnest money and handing over possession and title documents.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court decreed the suit on 31.01.2002. The High Court in R.F.A No.418 of 2003 set aside the trial court decree and dismissed the suit on 09.12.2009.
Issues
Whether the unregistered agreement to sell is admissible in evidence for seeking specific performance?
Whether the plaintiff had proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the agreement was valid and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform.
Respondent argued that the agreement was unregistered and inadmissible, and the plaintiff lacked readiness and willingness as per his own notice.
Ratio Decidendi
An unregistered agreement to sell which requires registration under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 is not admissible in evidence for the purpose of seeking specific performance under Section 49 of the Act. Additionally, the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree, failing which the suit for specific performance cannot be decreed.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Bangalore in R.F.A No.418 of 2003, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore.
An unregistered agreement to sell which requires registration under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act is not admissible in evidence for the purpose of seeking specific performance.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in the Trial Court, which was decreed on 31.01.2002. The defendant appealed to the High Court, which set aside the decree and dismissed the suit on 09.12.2009. The plaintiff's legal representatives appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on the date of judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Registration Act, 1908: Section 17(1A), Section 49
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
