Summary
The Supreme Court restored permission to exhibit documents in a specific-performance suit, reserving their genuineness, validity, binding effect and stamp-law objections for trial. The unregistered 2003 sale agreement could be received only as evidence of the contract under the Registration Act’s proviso, with no effect for possession protection under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Issues
- Whether unregistered sale agreements and a registered power of attorney could be received in evidence, and what questions remained for trial.
Provisions considered
- Sections 17(1A) and 49, including proviso, Registration Act, 1908Post-amendment nonregistration defeats reliance for section 53A purposes but does not prevent limited admission as evidence of a contract in a specific-performance suit. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882The unregistered 2003 agreement could not support part-performance protection, despite its limited evidentiary admission. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Section 17(1A) operates prospectively from 24 September 2001. An affected unregistered contract has no effect for section 53A purposes; the section 49 proviso nevertheless permits receipt as contract evidence in a specific-performance suit. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The 2003 agreement should bear an endorsement limiting admission to evidence of the agreement to sell, with no section 53A effect. Admission does not establish genuineness, validity or binding force, or dispose of stamp-law objections. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15)
- The registered power of attorney carried a rebuttable presumption of due stamping. The High Court prematurely treated the earlier sale agreement as incorporated for consideration and conclusively ruled on stamp liability; those issues remained for appropriate adjudication after evidence. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The 1995 agreement preceded the amendment. Restoration of the trial order concerned marking and exhibition, leaving all other document objections for independent determination. (¶¶ 12, 13, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; trial order dated 1 June 2016 restored with the specified limits. All other document objections reserved for trial. Suit to be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months of receipt. No costs.