Supreme Court Allows Unregistered Document as Evidence in Specific Performance Suit, Sets Aside Madras HC Order

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal against the Madras High Court's dismissal of a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to permit the appellant to place on record an original document dated 01.01.2000 in a suit for specific performance (O.S. No. 78 of 2012; I.A. No. 1397 of 2014).

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order in CRP.PD. No. 2828 of 2015 and directed that the interlocutory application for marking the document dated 01.01.2000 be allowed. The Court held that the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permitted reception of an unregistered document "as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.” The Court further emphasised that it had not expressed any opinion on the contents of the document and that "it is also open for the respondent/defendant to raise and contest the relevancy and validity of the document as are permissible in law."

Background

The appellant asserted that the respondent agreed to sell immovable property by an agreement dated 01.01.2000 on receipt of part consideration of Rs. 5,000 and put the appellant in possession; subsequent negotiations in 2002 recorded a sale at Rs. 550 per cent with additional payments made by the appellant. When the respondent did not execute the sale deed, the appellant filed the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. While the suit was pending, the appellant sought by interlocutory application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC to bring on record and mark the original agreement dated 01.01.2000, explaining that the original had been mixed up with other documents and a photocopy had already been filed with the plaint.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on 21.04.2015, finding the explanation unconvincing and holding that the document was unstamped and unregistered and therefore barred under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act. The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, reiterating the bar against bringing the unregistered document on record. The appellant challenged that order before this Court by special leave.

This Court examined the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act and relied on S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram (2010) 5 SCC 401, which held that an unregistered sale deed could be received in evidence "not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale," with an endorsement that it was received only as evidence of the oral agreement. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the document dated 01.01.2000 could be admitted for the limited purpose permitted by the proviso. The Court made clear that it expressed no view on the content, leaving it open for the respondent to contest relevancy and validity before the Trial Court. The appeal was allowed and the interlocutory application directed to be allowed; there was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6543 OF 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10893 OF 2021 Case Title: Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) through LRs. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the order]