K. SATHYABAMA AND ANOTHER Vs. K. MUTHUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 14.07.2014 made in I.A.No.85 of 2014 in O.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Nannilam.

(2.) The petitioners are defendants and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Nannilam. The respondent filed the said suit against the petitioners for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.04.2002 executed by one Kunchithapatham, husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner. The petitioners filed written statement on 20.12.2011 and are contesting the suit. Trial commenced. The respondent filed proof affidavit and produced agreement of sale dated 15.04.2002 to be marked as Exhibit. The respondent filed application for payment of stamp duty and penalty and the said application was allowed. The respondent has paid stamp duty and penalty on 26.11.2013 and produced the agreement of sale to be marked as Exhibit. At that time, the petitioners filed I.A.No.85 of 2014 under Order 13, Rule 3 and section 151 of C.P.C not to mark the unregistered agreement of sale dated 15.04.2002 filed by the respondent and prayed for rejection of the said document. According to the petitioners, the said document is a forged one. The husband of the first petitioner, deceased Kunchithapatham did not execute the said document. According to the petitioners, the said Kunchithapatham borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from mother of the respondent and handed over the suit property to her and agreed to repay the said amount and after repayment he will get the suit property. The respondent has claimed that as per the agreement dated 15.04.2002, the said Kunchithapatham and respondent agreed that respondent would take possession of the suit property from mother of the respondent and amount of 18,000/- borrowed from mother of the respondent would be treated as part of sale consideration. In view of the fact that the possession was given to the respondent as per the said agreement, the same has to be registered as per section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The value of the property is more than Rs. 100/-. Therefore, the agreement of sale has to be registered. The agreement of sale typed in a white paper is not duly stamped and registered. For the above reason, the petitioners have filed the present application.

(3.) The respondent filed counter affidavit and submitted that he has filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. He is not claiming protection under section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and not seeking any relief under section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In view of the same, section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 is not applicable and agreement of sale is not compulsorily registrable and prayed for dismissal of the application.