Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

R. HEMALATHA vs. KASHTHURI

SCR Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 834
Year/Volume: 2023/ Volume 2
Date of Judgment: 10 April 2023
Petitioner: R. HEMALATHA
Disposal Nature: Appeal Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 336
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Respondent: KASHTHURI
Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL /2535/2023
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Registration Act, 1908 – ss. 17(1A), Proviso to s. 49 – Specific Relief Act, 1877 – Chapter-II – Suit for specific performance – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Admissibility in evidence – Held: As per proviso to s.49, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the 1877 Act, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject to s. 17(1A) of the Registration Act – In the present case, it is not the case on behalf of either of the parties that Agreement to Sell in question would fall under the category of document as per s. 17(1A), Registration Act – Therefore, High Court rightly held relying upon proviso to s. 49 that the unregistered Agreement to Sell in question shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of s. 49 – Appeal fails – Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2012 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss. 53, 53A – Specific Relief.
Registration Act, 1908 – s. 17(1)(g) – Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2012 – Effect of – Discussed.

2. Case referred
3. Act
  • Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908)
  • Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963)
4. Keyword
  • Registration Act
  • 1908
  • ss.17(1A)
  • Proviso to s.49
  • Suit for specific performance