9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of agreement for leveling land - Application of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act - Effect of unregistered agreement on creating interest in immoveable property - Admissibility of unregistered document as evidence of covenant - Admission of terms of covenant in written statement Interpretation of agreement for leveling land: The case involved a dispute over an agreement for leveling land after removing sand and earth. The defendants denied the existence of the initial agreement dated 25th June, 1927, but claimed a subsequent unregistered agreement dated 4th August, 1927. The court found that the August agreement was the valid contract, not a lease, but a sale of an interest in immoveable property. The terms required the defendants to remove sand and earth and level the land by a specified date. Application of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act: The court analyzed the applicability of Section 53-A, which deals with part performance of agreements for transfer of immoveable property. The judgment highlighted that Section 53-A did not apply to agreements made before 1st April, 1930, the date when the provision came into force. The court emphasized that retrospective effect should not be given to statutes unless explicitly stated. Effect of unregistered agreement on creating interest in immoveable property: The judgment discussed the impact of an unregistered agreement purporting to create an interest in immoveable property. It concluded that the unregistered agreement could not be used as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. The court differentiated between creating a right, title, or interest in immoveable property and a personal covenant or collateral transaction that did not require registration. Admissibility of unregistered document as evidence of covenant: The court considered whether the covenant to level the land after removing sand was inseparable from the agreement. It determined that the covenant was collateral to the agreement and did not affect the land within the meaning of the law. The judgment clarified that an unregistered document could be admissible as evidence of a personal covenant or collateral transaction not requiring registration. Admission of terms of covenant in written statement: The defendants admitted fulfilling the covenants in the August agreement but did not admit to the specific terms of the covenant. The court noted that the terms of the covenant were not mentioned in the pleadings, and the plaintiff did not refer to the August agreement in the plaint. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision regarding damages for the defendants' breach of the covenant to level the land. The case was remanded to the trial court for further inquiry into the damages, allowing the defendants to present witnesses. The question of costs at the trial was left pending the outcome of the additional inquiry.
|
