R.ANANDA PADMANABHAN Vs. R.VADIVEL GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking review of the order passed by a Division Bench in confirming the order of the learned trial Court in decreeing the suit for specific performance, the present application has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants made only one submission. It is submitted that there is an error apparent of the face of the record. The judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, as confirmed by this Court, has to be termed as nullity. When once it is termed as nullity coupled with the fact that there is a lack of jurisdiction involving a question of law, then the review would be maintainable since it will amount to a void judgment.

(3.) In substance, the learned counsel has submitted that Ex.A1 speaks about the possession having been handed over in favour of the respondents by the appellants. Though the suit has been filed for specific performance and for permanent injunction restraining the applicants/appellants from alienating or encumbering the suit property, in the absence of any registration done as governed under Section 17 (1-A) of the Indian Registration Act, the suit ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable. Section 49 of the Registration Act only speaks about the effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Kiran Singh and others v. Chaman Paswan and others reported in AIR 1954 SC 340; (ii) Maritime Electric Co., Ltd v. General Dairies, Ltd reported in AIR 1937 PC 114; (ii) P.Jayarama Pillai v. Union Bank of India and another reported in 1991 2 MLJ 43; (iv) National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. M/s. Gautham Constructions and Fisheries Pvt Ltd., reported in 1991 1 LW 411, and (v) Palaniammal and Others v. M. Ravi Shankiar and another reported in 2013-1-L.W.998.