Date of judgement:
29th April, 2022
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Parties:
Petitioner – LAKSHMI AMMAL
Respondent – GEJARAJ (DIED) AND OTHERS
SUBJECT
The Court, in this case, held that even an unregistered sale deed can be relied upon as evidence when the relief of decree of specific performance is sought.
OVERVIEW
- The plaintiff had filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit premises.
- He also pleaded for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit premises.
- The plaintiff submitted that the defendants no. 2-5 had executed a power of attorney in the favour of defendant no. 1 who had, in turn, entered into a sale deed with the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises
- As per the sale, deed the balance consideration of 10,000 was payable within 3 years.
- The possession of the suit premises and the parent documents were delivered to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff contended that the defendants deliberately avoided the execution of sale deed and interfered with the possession of the plaintiff and tried to alienate the suit premises.
- Defendant no. 1 contended that the plaintiff was unable to pay the balance consideration and had agreed to return the possession of the suit premises.
- Furthermore, the power of attorney had also been cancelled.
- The other defendants submitted that the defendant no. 1 had not acted as per the conditions stipulated in the power of attorney. They further contended that the sale deed was fabricated.
- The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the plaintiff thereafter approached the appellate court which set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and granted the decree for specific performance.
- Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the second appeal.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- Section 53A: Part Performance
QUESTIONS RAISED
- Whether the Trial Court had erred in granting the decree of specific performance?
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court primarily noted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had upheld the sale deed's genuineness.
- The Court noted that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 will bind the other defendants by virtue of the power of attorney.
- The Court further noted that the Court cannot interfere with the clause of the agreement which the parties have consciously entered into merely because the clause seems unreasonable to the Court.
- The Court thus held that the Trial Court had erred in doubting the sale agreement and the judgment was rightly set aside by the Appellate Court.
- Furthermore, the Court noted that the sale deed had been executed and a substantial part of the consideration provided in the sale deed had been paid by the plaintiff.
- This established the readiness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the sale deed and hence he was entitled to the decree of specific performance.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that even where the sale deed is unregistered, it will be admissible as evidence so far as the remedy of decree of specific performance is concerned. Hence, the second appeal was dismissed by the Court.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
