KURRI VEERAREDDI Vs. KURRI BAPIREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case I have come to the conclusion, though not without some doubt, that our answer to the question which has been referred to us should be in the affirmative.

(2.) There is much to be said in support of the view that notwithstanding the express words of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is inequitable to apply the section as against a party who is in possession and who, if he had sued for specific performance of the contract to sell, would have been entitled to a decree.

(3.) On the other hand in dealing with the question which arises in this case, I think it is legitimate to take into account the considerations of public policy on which the requirements laid down in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act are based. In enacting Section 54, it was, I take it, the intention of the Legislature, by means of compulsory registration to minimize as far as possible the chances of litigation and to reduce the opportunities for perjury in connection with sales of immoveable property.