In Civil  Appeal No. 6733 of 2022-SC- No decree for specific performance could have been passed on unregistered document/agreement to sell: SC dismisses suit instituted for permanent injunction on basis of unregistered agreement to sell
Justices M.R. Shah & Krishna Murari [23-09-2022]

Read Judgment: Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, September 24, 2022: One cannot seek relief for permanent injunction on the basis of an unregistered document/agreement to sell, the Supreme Court has held.

The Division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari allowed the instant appeal by observing that the first appellate Court and the High Court had committed a grave error in passing a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant and dismissing the counterclaim filed by the original defendant. 

This matter revolved around an Original Suit which was instituted by the respondent- original plaintiff before the  Trial  Court for permanent injunction only. The said suit was filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dated March 23, 1996. The original plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing her possession in the suit property.  In the said suit, the appellant herein – original defendant filed a counterclaim seeking the decree of possession.

The  Trial  Court dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff and refused to grant permanent injunction and allowed the counter-claim of the defendant on the ground that original plaintiff could not prove the agreement to sell and that the original plaintiff was  in  unauthorized possession of the suit property since July 8, 1997. The Trial Court also held that the original plaintiff could not prove the agreement to sell for a sale consideration of Rs. 14,000  and also could not prove that she was put in possession of the suit property . 

The original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The  first appellate Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and consequently decreed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The  first appellate Court also dismissed the counterclaim of the defendant. 

The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court has been confirmed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order passed in Second Appeal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in dismissing the second appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the  first appellate Court, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and dismissing the counterclaim, the original defendant  preferred the present appeal. 

After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court noted  that the original plaintiff instituted a suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction only, which was claimed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated March 23, 1996. 

 However, it is required to be noted that the agreement to sell was an unregistered document/agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper. Therefore, as such, such an unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence, the Court stated. 

In view of the same, the Court noted that the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession which was allowed by the Trial Court. 

“The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get relief by clever drafting”, the Court noted. 

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Court noted that both, the first appellate Court and the High Court  committed a grave error in passing a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant and dismissing the counter-claim filed by the original defendant.

 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and dismissing the counterclaim of the defendant are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside, the Court observed.  Accordingly, the present appeal was allowed.