9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of an unregistered agreement to sale under the Registration (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1982. 2. Plaintiff's entitlement to possession of the suit house based on the unregistered agreement. 3. The legal implications of the defendant's claim of ownership and possession. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of an Unregistered Agreement to Sale: The central legal question in this case was whether the agreement to sale dated 29-12-1962, which was not registered, could be admitted as evidence. The Registration (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1982 amended the Registration Act, 1908, making it mandatory for such documents to be registered. The amendment was given retrospective effect, allowing documents executed before the commencement of the Act to be registered within four months from 1st March, 1982. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, however, allows unregistered documents to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of part performance of a contract under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 2. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Possession: The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 222 of 1973 seeking possession of the suit house based on the unregistered agreement to sale. The trial court and the first appellate court both ruled in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to hand over possession upon receipt of Rs. 900.00. However, the High Court noted that the plaintiff's suit was solely based on the unregistered document. The plaintiff did not plead or pray for possession based on ownership, which was a critical omission. The High Court emphasized that the plaintiff must succeed on his own strength and not on the weakness of the defendant. 3. Defendant's Claim of Ownership and Possession: The defendant contested the suit, claiming ownership and continuous possession of the suit house. The trial court and the first appellate court found the defendant's evidence inconsistent and not trustworthy. The High Court, however, pointed out that the plaintiff's failure to base the suit on ownership meant that the unregistered document could not be admitted as evidence. The High Court reiterated that the plaintiff could not rely on the defendant's failure to prove ownership to succeed in his claim. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the unregistered agreement to sale could not be considered admissible evidence under the amended Registration Act. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit, which was solely based on this document, could not succeed. The court clarified that this decision did not render the plaintiff remediless, as other legal remedies could be pursued for recovering possession. The Second Appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were quashed, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
|
