M.SHIVAPPA Vs. VARADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is being disposed off at the threshold dispensing with notice to the respondents in light of the controversy presented for adjudication. The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.1239/2006 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short Civil Court). The Civil Court by the impugned order dtd. 23/5/2020 has rejected the petitioners request to mark unregistered sale deed dtd. 18/1/1974. The petitioners, who rely on unregistered sale deed dtd. 18/1/1974, have filed this suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell as evidenced by this unregistered deed dtd. 18/1/1974 and for a direction to the respondents to execute sale deed for the subject property.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401 and emphasizes that the civil Court should have considered the petitioners request for marking of the document dtd. 18/1/1974 in the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this decision. He submits that the Supreme Court in a set of very similar circumstances, where a plaint was presented for specific performance based on an unregistered sale deed, has found fault with the Court rejecting the request for marking of the unregistered document despite provisions of Sec. 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

(3.) On perusal of the impugned order and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order must be invalidated and civil Court called upon to reconsider the petitioners request in the light of the aforesaid decision with reasonable opportunity to the respondents for effective and complete adjudication. The suit is pending from the year 2006 and there must be an expedited decision on merits.