BHAJAN SINGH Vs. JEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20.11.2002 where the entire consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- had been paid. The agreement was between brothers and although the entire consideration had been paid, the parties allowed for time for performance upto 30.12.2003. The property was delivered possession under the terms of the agreement.

(2.) It would appear that the defendant applied for partition of the properties including the suit property and when the plaintiff felt threatened through the action that his possession will be disturbed, took the said act of applying for partition as constituting a cause of action for institution of the suit. The court found the agreement to be true and also found that the plaintiff had been ready and willing. However, it reasoned that since the property had been delivered possession, it had not been registered and, therefore, it could not be acted upon. The court also found that the suit was barred of limitation. These findings were affirmed in appeal.

(3.) I must hold that the findings of the courts below that the document required registration were making a wrong reading of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act into Section 17 of the Registration Act. They operate in different fields. If the suit is brought claiming a right of part performance, the Amending Act 48 of 2001 to the Transfer of Property Act declares that such a right cannot be enforced otherwise than by a person who has obtained possession through a registered document. Section 17 of the Registration Act which provides for compulsory registration of documents does not require executory contracts to be registered.