Disposed¶17

Sahana Haque v. Mohammad Saukat Hossain @ Md. Saukat Hossain

Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Specific performance of oral agreement

Calcutta HC5 Aug 2025CO/2624/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance of oral agreement not barred by Section 17 Registration Act 1908; proviso to Section 49 permits unregistered agreement to be received as evidence of contract; rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC upheld; Article 227; Title Suit No. 202 of 2023; oral agreement dated March 30, 2021; Purba Burdwan; C.O. 2624 of 2025; Sahana Haque v. Mohammad Saukat Hosssain @ Md. Saukat Hossain.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and disposed of C.O. 2624 of 2025 with no order as to costs. ¶17

Sahana Haque Vs Mohammad Saukat Hossain @ Md. Saukat… — Specific Performance | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

D/L- 29 05/08/2025 Ct. No.-6 Aritra

¶2

C.O. 2624 of 2025

¶3

Sahana Haque Vs. Mohammad Saukat Hosssain @ Md. Saukat Hossain

¶4

Mr. Arup Krishna Das Mr. Abdus Salam Mr. Rajarshi Ghosh .…for the petitioner

¶5

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being No.13 dated April 23, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 2^nd Additional Court, Burdwan, District-Purba Burdwan in Title Suit No.202 of 2023.

¶6

By the order impugned, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected.

¶7

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite party filed the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement. He submits that Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 states that an agreement which purports or operates to create, declare assign, limit, extinguish, whether in present or in future any right, title, interest of the value of one hundred rupees or upwards in relation to an immovable property has to be by a registered instrument. He, therefore, submits that specific performance of an oral agreement is

¶8

¶9

barred by the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶10

The opposite party herein filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement of March 30, 2021 and for other consequential reliefs. In such a suit the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which stood rejected by the impugned order.

¶11

Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with the effects of non-registration of document which is required to be registered. It states that no document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, to be registered shall affect any immovable property comprised therein, or confer any power to adopt, or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power unless it has been registered. Proviso thereto states that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act or as evidence of collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document.

¶12

Thus, proviso to Section 49 makes it abundantly clear that an unregistered agreement can be received as an evidence of a contract.

¶13

¶14

This Court is therefore, of the considered view that the specific performance of an oral agreement cannot be said to be barred by the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶15

The learned trial judge was right in holding that specific performance can be granted on the basis of an oral contract if the same is valid, binding and enforceable.

¶16

For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such order impugned.

¶17

With the aforesaid observation, CO 2624 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶18

There will be no order as to costs.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶20

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Sahana Haque v. Mohammad Saukat Hossain @ Md. Saukat Hossain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahana Haque v. Mohammad Saukat Hossain @ Md. Saukat Hossain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girik Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Paritosh Roy and Ors.

Vinty Khemani and Ors. Vs Ghanshyam Das Harnathka and Ors.

Ruhul Amin Sha Vs Fani Bhushan Dolai and Anr.

Swapan Manna and Anr. Vs Ruma Mukherjee and Ors.

Jay Prakash Gupta Vs Ratna Devi and Ors.

Asraf Ali Vs Kamrujjaman and Ors.