9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lief 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. - First Appeal No.323/2014 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2015 - Hon'ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Justice J. K. Maheshwari Shri Sanjay Kumar Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay Kumar Malvi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the cross objection, in particular, to question the finding of the trial Court on the other relevant issues such as factum of execution of agreement and on readiness and willingness to perform the obligation under the said agreement of the plaintiff. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the trial Court is in the teeth of Supreme Court's decision in the case of S. Kaladevi Vs. V. R. Somasundaram and others 2010 (3) MPLJ 500. According to the appellant, this decision was pressed into service before the trial Court but the trial Court has failed to analyse the same, though directly on the point and in favour of the appellant. Further, as the cross objection has been filed by the defendant limited to the direction to refund the earnest money amount alongwith interest and costs of the suit, no other issue arises for consideration of this Court; and that if the appellant succeeds in questioning the erroneous view taken by the Trial Court, must succeed in getting complete relief as prayed in the suit - of decree of specific performance. 5. Counsel for the respondent in his argument did make an unsuccessful and feeble attempt to question the finding re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 100/- and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral 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 1908 Act. 12. Recently in the case of K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 564 this Court noticed the following statement of Mulla in his Indian Registration Act, 7th Edition, at page 189:- ......The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Allahabad, Madras, Patna, Lahore, Assam, Nagpur, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Orissa, Rangoon and Jammu Kashmir; the former Chief Court of Oudh; the Judicial Commissioner's Court at Peshawar, Ajmer and Himachal Pradesh and the Supreme Court have held that a document which requires registration under Section 17 and which is not ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch cases would be in consonance with the proviso appended to Section 49 of the Act of 1908. Considering this decision, the view taken by the trial Court on the issue under consideration will have to be overturned. The reason why the trial Court has not adverted to this Supreme Court decision has remained unexplained. We need not dilate on that matter as we have no hesitation in accepting the argument of the appellant that the sole basis on which the relief claimed by the appellant in the suit for specific performance has been rejected cannot be countenanced. 10. We, accordingly, reverse the said opinion of the trial Court and as a necessary corollary decree the suit in its entirety by granting relief of specific performance to the appellant as prayed. 11. The next question is whether the respondents/ defendants can be permitted to question the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court on other issues. As aforesaid, the respondent has filed cross objection limited to challenge to the direction issued by the trial Court to refund the earnest money amount along with interest and costs of the suit and nothing more. In absence of challenge to the said findings, it is not necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
