Dismissed

Srimati Tetri Devi v. Most. Ainasiya Devi and Ors.

Patna HC4 Oct 2012C.R./11/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge oral order dismisses a civil revision challenging a trial court's decision to reject an objection over the maintainability of a specific performance suit based on an unregistered agreement to sell. The court holds the trial court was correct in noting that the issue requires evidence evaluation.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision application is disposed of as the trial court's order does not warrant interference.

Srimati Tetri Devi Vs Most. Ainasiya Devi and Ors. — Specific Performance | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.11 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Srimati Tetri Devi W/O Sri Narayan Mahto R/o Village - Saraura, P.S. Birpur, District - Lakhisarai

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Most. Ainasiya Devi W/O Late Parmanand Sao R/o Village - Saraura, P.S. Birpur, District - Lakhisarai 2. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh S/O Late Murari Prasad Singh R/O Village - Barahiya Taraph - Dhanraj, P.S. Barahiya, District - Lakhisarai 3. Amit Kumar Singh S/O Sri Ajit Kumar Singh Under The Guardianship Of His Father Sri Ajit Kumar Singh R/O Village - Barahiya Tara - Dhanraj, P.S. Barahiya, District - Lakhisarai

¶4

.... .... Respondent/s

¶5

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶6

04. 04-10-2012 Heard Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by learned Sub Judge-1^st , Lakhisarai in Title Suit No. 88 of 2009, whereby the objection raised by the petitioner as contained in his application dated 27.07.2011 questioning the maintainability of the suit in the light of the statutory provisions underlying Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1885 has been disposed of, inter alia, on grounds that the matter shall be considered during the course of hearing as it required evidence.

¶7

The suit in question has been filed for specific performance

¶8

Patna High Court C.R. No.11 of 2012 (4) dt.04-10-2012

¶9

¶10

on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sale dated 16.08.2005 in relation to the suit property stated to have been executed by the defendant-opposite party no. 2 in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1. The petitioner herein claims to be the purchaser of the suit property and has raised the objection in the light of the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 70(i)(a) of the Registration Act requiring every document for enforcing any agreement about Rs. 100/- to be registered.

¶11

Learned court for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied upon a bench decision of this Court reported in 2010(1) PLJR 317 (Sri Ashok Goenka & Anr. vs. Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors.) to submit that no title can be claimed by a party on the basis of an unregistered document. The suit according to learned counsel is not maintainable in view of the fact that the plaintiff is seeking to enforce her right on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sale dated 16.08.2005.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel that no title can be enforced by a party on the basis of an unregistered document cannot be controverted but the fact remains that the suit in question has been filed seeking specific performance by the defendant on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 16.08.2005. Whether or not a right would accrue in favour of a party to an

¶13

Patna High Court C.R. No.11 of 2012 (4) dt.04-10-2012

¶14

¶15

agreement to sell under an unregistered document is a subject matter of consideration before the trial court and the trial court by the order impugned has correctly disposed of the objection of the petitioner, inter alia, on grounds of the necessity of evaluation of evidence. Even the judgment relied upon by learned counsel of this Court recognizes the right of a party to maintain a suit for specific performance.

¶16

In that view of the matter, the order passed by learned court below does not warrant any interference and this application is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶18

S.Sb/-

Srimati Tetri Devi v. Most. Ainasiya Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srimati Tetri Devi v. Most. Ainasiya Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalan Singh Vs Mantora Devi and Ors.

Ram Prasad Roy Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Lakhi Chand Bin Vs The State Of Bihar

Ramjee Upadhyay and Ors. Vs Ravi Nandan Upadhyay and Ors.

Most. Vidhyawati Devi and Anr. Vs Ost. Sushila Devi

Ram Ratan Singh and Anr. Vs Ram Balak Singh and Ors.