Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) through LRs., 2025
The scope of Admissibility of an unregistered agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
10 May 2025
Judges
Justice P.S. Narasimha ⦁ Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
Muruganandam (appellant) entered into an unregistered agreement to sell with Muniyandi (respondent) on 01.01.2000.
-
The respondent accepted part payment and handed over possession of the property, but later refused to execute the sale deed.
-
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance, which was dismissed by the trial court, citing inadmissibility due to lack of registration.
-
The High Court upheld the dismissal. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Can an unregistered agreement to sell be used as evidence in a suit for specific performance, despite state amendments mandating registration?
-
Does the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permit such a document to be used to prove an oral agreement of sale?
-
Can delivery of possession and part payment strengthen the appellant’s claim despite non-registration?
Held
-
The Court ruled that the unregistered agreement dated 01.01.2000 may be admitted in evidence, not as proof of transfer of ownership, but solely as evidence of the contract (oral agreement of sale).
-
The case falls squarely within the scope of the proviso to Section 49, allowing the appellant to rely on the document in the context of a specific performance suit.
Analysis
-
The Court emphasized the distinction between a document used to transfer title (which requires registration) and one used to prove the existence of a contract, which may be unregistered yet admissible.
-
It reaffirmed the liberal approach in interpreting the proviso to Section 49, ensuring that parties are not penalized for non-registration when their claim is only for enforcement of a contract, not for proving ownership.
-
This ruling has significant implications in states like Tamil Nadu, where registration of agreements to sell is mandatory.
-
The decision underscores the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities, especially when possession and part performance are proven.