V. SIVASANKARAN Vs. PUSHPALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the petition filed under Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the unregistered, unstamped sale agreement relied on by the plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant would submit that it is the case of the plaintiff that part performance under Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act had been done by the defendant and possession had been handed over and when such being the position, the Sale Agreement must have been necessarily registered and without the same being registered, it cannot be allowed to be marked as a document. He would further submit that there are contrary pleadings in the plaint and at para 4 of the plaint, it has been stated by the plaintiff that in pursuance of the part performance, the possession of the suit property and the original deed in respect of the suit property were handed over to him, whereas in prayer (b) the plaintiff had sought for a direction to the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the property and in default seeking court to deliver the property to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. He would further submit that when there is an averment of part performance done by the defendants, in view of the amendment to Sec. 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act, the document is inadmissible in evidence and it cannot be relied upon and marked whereas the trial Court, without properly looking into the provisions, had dismissed the same.