2015 (8) TMI 1452 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for Specific Performance - Whether the opinion recorded by the trial Court that the suit agreement being unregistered document, relief of specific performance cannot be granted to the plaintiff, is correct? Held that - The plaintiff has been non-suited only on the ground that the suit agreement being unregistered document was inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, decree of specific performance on the basis of such agreement cannot be granted. This view taken by the Trial Court is in the teeth of the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaladevi Vs. V. R. Somasundaram and others 2010 (4) TMI 1184 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that when an unregistered document is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908 - the said opinion of the trial Court reversed and as a necessary corollary decree the suit in its entirety by granting relief of specific performance to the appellant as prayed. Whether the respondents/ defendants can be permitted to question the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court on other issues? - Held that - In absence of challenge to the said findings, it is not necessary for us to examine the matter any further. In any case, the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court on the said two crucial issues, is founded on cogent evidence as analyzed by the trial Court including the defendants having questioned the agreement only on the quantum mentioned therein and not on any other count. Accordingly, those findings will have to be affirmed and it will have to be held that those issues have been correctly answered by the trial Court. The suit deserves to be decreed in its entirety by granting relief of specific performance as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff - the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Specific performance of agreement, admissibility of unregistered document, quantum of costs and refund of earnest money.

Analysis:

The judgment concerns a first appeal challenging a trial court's decision on a suit for specific performance of an agreement related to a property. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on issues of execution of the agreement and readiness and willingness to perform. However, the trial court rejected the specific performance claim solely because the agreement was unregistered, citing precedents. The appellant contended that the trial court erred in its interpretation, citing a Supreme Court decision. The respondent's attempt to challenge other trial court findings was unsuccessful.

Upon reconsideration, the High Court focused on the correctness of the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of the unregistered document. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the High Court overturned the trial court's opinion, stating that an unregistered document can be admitted as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, the High Court granted the relief of specific performance to the appellant.

Regarding the respondent's cross-objection on costs and refund of earnest money, the High Court found no need to address these issues further due to the reversal of the trial court's decision on specific performance. The High Court affirmed the trial court's findings on the quantum of costs and refund of earnest money, as they were based on cogent evidence. The High Court decreed the suit for specific performance, requiring the appellant to deposit the outstanding agreement amount with interest, and disposed of the cross-objection accordingly.

In conclusion, the High Court quashed the trial court's judgment and decree, decreeing the suit for specific performance in favor of the appellant. The High Court outlined the conditions for granting the relief sought by the appellant and directed the appellant to deposit the outstanding amount with interest. The cross-objection was also disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.