Summary
Relying on an unregistered agreement to sell on ten-rupee stamp paper, the plaintiff sued only for a permanent injunction protecting her possession, and the defendant counter-claimed for possession. The trial court dismissed the suit and allowed the counter-claim, finding the agreement and the delivery of possession unproved. The first appellate court and the Allahabad High Court reversed, using the agreement for the collateral purpose of an injunction. The Supreme Court restored the trial decree. An unregistered agreement to sell is inadmissible in evidence. Even if such a document can sometimes serve a collateral purpose, a plaintiff cannot get indirectly what she could not get directly by suing for specific performance. Clever drafting that asked only for an injunction could not change that, least of all against a counter-claim for possession.
Issues
- Whether a plaintiff can obtain a permanent injunction protecting possession on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell, having omitted to seek specific performance.
- Whether the counter-claim for possession should have been dismissed.
Provisions considered
- Sections 17 and 49, Registration Act, 1908An unregistered agreement to sell is inadmissible in evidence. Use for a collateral purpose cannot extend to granting relief that would in substance enforce the agreement. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Section 38 (perpetual injunction), Specific Relief Act, 1963An injunction cannot be granted to secure indirectly the substance of specific performance that the plaintiff could not obtain on the unregistered agreement. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Held
- The agreement to sell was unregistered and executed on ten-rupee stamp paper, so it was not admissible in evidence. (¶ 5)
- An unregistered document may sometimes be used for a collateral purpose, but a plaintiff cannot get indirectly a relief that she cannot get in a suit for the substantive relief of specific performance. Clever drafting confining the prayer to an injunction cannot achieve that. (¶ 6)
- Particularly given the defendant's counter-claim for possession, the first appellate court and the High Court gravely erred in granting the injunction and dismissing the counter-claim. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
Appeal allowed. The judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court were set aside, and the trial court's decree dismissing the suit for injunction and allowing the defendant's counter-claim for possession was restored. No costs.