Case Note & Summary
The respondent/plaintiff instituted O.S. No.67/2013 in the Court of Civil Judge, Muddebihal, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 09.02.1998 and a direction to the defendant to execute a sale deed. The defendant/petitioner filed written statement contesting the suit and later filed I.A.No.2 under Sections 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the agreement was compulsorily registrable but unregistered. The trial court rejected the application on 24.08.2016, holding that the agreement was only a contract and did not transfer any right, title or interest, hence not requiring registration. The defendant challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the instrument at Annexure-A and found that it was a plain agreement of sale, not creating or extinguishing any right in immovable property. The court held that such an agreement does not require compulsory registration under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, and the bar under Section 49 does not apply. The suit for specific performance is maintainable. The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Specific Performance - Maintainability of Suit - Unregistered Agreement of Sale - Sections 17(1A) and 49 of Registration Act, 1908 - The defendant filed I.A.No.2 to dismiss the suit on the ground that the agreement of sale was compulsorily registrable and unregistered. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the agreement is only a contract and does not transfer any right, title or interest. The High Court upheld the order, finding that an agreement of sale does not require registration and the suit for specific performance is maintainable. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an unregistered agreement of sale dated 09.02.1998 is inadmissible in evidence and renders the suit for specific performance not maintainable under Sections 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 24.08.2016 rejecting I.A.No.II. The court held that the agreement of sale dated 09.02.1998 is not a compulsorily registrable document and the suit for specific performance is maintainable.
Law Points
- Agreement of sale not compulsorily registrable
- Suit for specific performance maintainable despite non-registration
- Sections 17(1A) and 49 of Registration Act
- 1908
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (12) 27
Writ Petition No.205848/2016 (GM-CPC)
Gurunathappa S/o Gurusangappa Angadid
Subhash S/o Gurulingappagouda Biradar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application to dismiss a suit for specific performance on the ground that the agreement of sale was unregistered.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner/defendant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 24.08.2016 on I.A.No.II in O.S. No.67/2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Muddebihal.
Filing Reason
The petitioner/defendant contended that the suit based on an unregistered agreement of sale was not maintainable under Sections 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected I.A.No.II on 24.08.2016, holding that the agreement of sale was not compulsorily registrable.
Issues
Whether an unregistered agreement of sale is inadmissible in evidence and renders a suit for specific performance not maintainable under Sections 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Submissions/Arguments
Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that the trial court improperly considered I.A.2 and the rejection was arbitrary. He submitted that the instrument being unregistered, in view of Sections 17(1A) and 49 of the Act, the suit is not maintainable and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
An agreement of sale which does not itself create or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. A suit for specific performance based on such an unregistered agreement is maintainable, and the bar under Section 49 of the Act does not apply.
Judgment Excerpts
Trial Judge having found that the suit has been instituted to pass a decree of specific performance of the contract on the basis of an Agreement of Sale dated 09.02.1998, which is only a contract between the parties and there is no transfer of any right, title or interest has held that the instrument on which the suit is founded is not a compulsorily registrable one.
A perusal of the instrument at Annexure-A shows that it is a plain agreement of sale. It does not create or extinguish any right in immovable property. Hence, it is not a compulsorily registrable document.
Procedural History
The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.67/2013 in the Court of Civil Judge, Muddebihal, for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The defendant/petitioner filed written statement and later I.A.No.2 under Sections 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking dismissal of the suit. The trial court rejected the application on 24.08.2016. The defendant filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Registration Act, 1908: 17(1A), 49
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): 151
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
