Unregistered Sale Agreement Admissible For Specific Performance: Calcutta HC

An unregistered and insufficiently stamped agreement for sale can be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance, provided the financial capability to complete the purchase is clearly established.

A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya affirmed the dismissal of a specific performance suit after finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate continuous financial readiness during the relevant contract period.

Admissibility of Unregistered Agreements in Specific Performance Suits

Addressing the admissibility of the unregistered document, the Court noted that Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 expressly permits an unregistered agreement for sale to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Regarding the lack of proper stamp duty, the Court clarified that such a defect could be cured by directing impoundment before passing the final decree.

Evaluating the requirement of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the Court relied on Mohammed Khaleel (D) Through Lrs and Others Vs. Jayamma ( "2026 SCC Online SC 1191": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 609) to underscore that readiness refers to financial capacity, while willingness reflects the conduct and intention of the party seeking performance.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...from his statement of accounts it is apparent that he did not possess the consideration amount during the relevant period and it is also not the case of the appellant that he had made arrangement for any financial assistance from any bank or any financial institution."

The Court has the following directions:

"FA 102 of 2023 is dismissed on contest thereby affirming the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) 3rd Court, Alipore, South-24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 615 of 2016 ( Sl. No. 39 of 2003). There will be no order as to costs."

Background:

The dispute arose out of an agreement for sale dated May 15, 2002, executed between the appellant (purchaser) and the vendor for a property at Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata, for a total consideration of Rs. 19,50,000/-. The appellant asserted paying Rs. 2,00,000/- as earnest money via cheque and subsequently sought specific performance or damages under the Transfer Of Property Act, 1882.

The respondent resisted the suit, arguing that the agreement was unregistered, insufficiently stamped, and that the appellant lacked the requisite financial capacity and intention to complete the transaction within the specified eight-month timeframe.

The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Calcutta High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that while the agreement was admissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the appellant's bank account statements demonstrated an absence of sufficient funds during the relevant period, failing the test of readiness.

Case Details:
Case No.: FA No. 102 of 2023
NeutralCitation: 2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
Case Title: Sri Chandranath Dutta Vs. Smt. Dhira Mazumder and another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. A. C. Kar, Mr. Manoj Kumar Roy, Mr. Anirban Kar, Mr. Rohit Mahato
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Mr. Suman Banerjee

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 1590