First Appeal dismissed. Trial Court correctly held specific performance of unregistered sale deed maintainability barred. Succinctly conducted, with no stray remarks.
Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment confirming dismissal of original suit stands affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Appeal No. 70 of 2008
Gupta Agro Venture Pvt. Ltd.
..…Plaintiff /Appellant. Versus
Pratap Singh and another
.…Defendant/Respondents
Present :
Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.D. Bisen, Advocate for the respondents.
Dated: 8 th M arch, 2021
JUDGEMENT
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
This is a plaintiff’s First Appeal, which has been preferred by the appellant by invoking the provisions contained under Section 96 of the C.P.C., for the purposes of challenging the judgment and decree dated 8th September, 2008, which was rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udham Singh Nagar, in Original Suit No. 85 of 2006, Gupta Agro Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pratap Singh and others. By virtue of the impugned judgment and decree, which is under challenge in the present First Appeal, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the Suit, consequently, the present First Appeal.
2
agreement for sale, which was executed in favour of one Mr. Surendra Kumar Gupta S/o Badri Prasad Gupta, Director, Gupta Agro Ventures Pvt. Ltd..
3
and 22 of the written statement with regard to the amendment which were carried in the provisions, contained under Section 154 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, imposing the restrictions, upon conveying the agricultural property, which has been recorded as an agricultural land and, particularly, with regard to the fact and from the perspective that an unregistered agreement for sale of an immovable property, the registration of which, was mandatory as per the terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act, no right and title could be conferred on the appellant nor there was any cause for him to institute the Suit, because of the embargo created under Section 45 (e) (i) (j) of the Specific Performance Act. Later on, the plaint was amended for altogether a different reason the Suit itself, which have no any relevance for the purposes of deciding the present First Appeal.
“1- D;k oknh QeZ ,oa izfroknhx.k ds e/; fnukad 31-12-2005 dk fyf[kr bdjkjukek eqvk;nk c; rgjhj fd;k x;k ftlds vuqlkj 31-03-2006 rd izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh QeZ ds i{k esa fodz; foys[k fu.ikfnr fd;k tkuk Fkk] ;fn gkW rks izHkko \
2- D;k oknh QeZ }kjk okn i= ds izLrj&2 esa of.kZr udn o pSd dh /kujkf”k dqy eqo- 5]01]000-00 :i;s vfxze jkf”k ds :i esa :o: xokgu izfroknhx.k dks Hkqxrku fd;s x;s \
3- D;k oknh dks mRrj izns”k tehankjh ,oa Hkw&lq/kkj vf/kfu;e ;Fkk la”kksf/kr okLrs jkT; mRrjkWpy ds vUrxZr d`f’k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa viuk eq[kR;kjs vke fu;qDr djus dk fof/kd vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS \ tSlk fd oknksRrj 29d ds izLrj&13 esa dgk x;k gS \
4- D;k oknh dks ,d xSj iathd`r fodz; vuqcU/k ls iz”uxr Hkwfe lsa laca/k esa dksbZ lRo vFkok vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrk gS \ tSlk fd oknksRrj 29d ds izLrj&22 esa dgk x;k gS \
5- D;k oknh }kjk okn dk fd;k x;k ewY;kadu o vnk fd;k x;k
U;k;”kqYd vi;kZIr gS \
6- vuqrks’k \ ”
4
5
the partial consideration, which has changed hands between the parties to the agreement as a consequence of the execution of the agreement for sale. Hence, he submits that the impact of registration ought to have been considered by the Trial Court, in the light of the finding which had been recorded on issue No.1, particularly, when the fact of execution of an agreement for sale has been admitted.
i. That looking to the unregistered agreement itself, whether it was executable by invoking a civil proceedings for specific performance ?
ii. Whether at all the suit for specific performance could be instituted on the basis of the unregistered agreement for sale ?
iii.
As to whether the agreement for sale dated 31st December, 2005, would be read for collateral purposes for the purpose of return of money of partial sale consideration, which has been shown to have been paid, as per the terms of the agreement for sale ?
“ 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory .—(l) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:—
(a) instruments of gift of immovable property;
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or
6
extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;
(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and
(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;
[(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:]
Provided that the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt, from the operation of this sub-section any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.
[(1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.]
(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (l) applies to—
(i) any composition deed; or
(ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or
(iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any
7
interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or
(iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or
(v) any document [other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A)] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or
(vi) any decree or order of a Court [except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding]; or
(vii) any grant of immovable property by the Government; or
(viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or
(ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871 (26 of 1871), or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (19 of 1983); or
(x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists Loans Act, 1884 (12 of 1884) or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or
[(xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, (6 of 1890) vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or]
(xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or
(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer.
[Explanation.—A document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.]
(3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the 1st day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered.
8
“ge fd izrki flag] ,oa vkse izdk”k iq=x.k Lo0 Jh eqa”kh jke fuoklh eylkfxj/kjiqj] rg0 fdPNk] ftyk&m/keflaguxj ds gS izFke i{k A
,oa
eS fd lqjsUnz dqekj xqIrk iq= Jh cnzh izlkn xqIrk Mk;jsDVj&xqIrk ,xzks oSUplZ izk0 fy0] fuoklh 219] vkf”k;kuk VkolZ] ,Xthfo”ku jksM] iVuk&800001 fcgkj] bl bdjkjukes esa f}rh; i{k gSA”
9
alleged agreement for sale proposing to purchase the property, as described above, the said Pvt. Ltd. Company was not the proposed purchaser, but rather, it was Mr. Surendra Kumar Gupta, who had rather in his individual capacity, who has described himself as to be the Director of the appellant, had entered into an agreement for sale, and if at all there was any cause of action to institute the Suit for specific performance and the grant of decree of permanent injunction, it would have been at the behest of Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, in his individual capacity, and not by the present appellant, who is not the signatory to the agreement. Hence, this agreement for sale, even as per the concept argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it could be read for collateral purposes, it could be only between the signatories to the agreement and not to the appellant, who is not signatory to it.
10
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udham Singh Nagar, in Suit No. 85 of 2006, M/s Gupta Agro Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pratap Singh, dismissing the Suit by the impugned judgment dated 8th September, 2008, is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the decree is directed to be formulated.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 08.03.2021
Shiv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for specific performance is maintainable on the basis of an unregistered agreement for sale?
Whether an unregistered agreement for sale can be read for collateral purposes when parties are different?
Whether a company can sue for specific performance of an agreement signed by its director in his individual capacity?
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Gupta Agro Venture Pvt. Ltd.
Pratap Singh
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
