PUNJALI Vs. KADOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lower appellate Court decided this suit on a point of law, in accordance with the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh appeal No. 49 of 1924, 53 I.A. 214, in which it was held that the effect of Sub-section (6)(b), Section 55, T.P. Acts 1882 is that a purchaser of land who has paid earnest money cannot sue for specific performance of the contract unless the contract has been registered. As this ruling was inconsistent with the practice prevailing, in India, the Indian Registration (Amendment) Act, 1927 (Act

(2.) OF 1927), was passed, which came into force from 18th February 1927. By this Act, there has been added to Section 17, Sub-section (2). Registration Act 1908, the following explanation. Explanation. - A document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest-money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money. 2. It was argued by the learned pleader for the respondent that Act 2 of 1927 is a substantial amendment of the Registration Act, and cannot have a retrospective effect, and cannot apply to suits decided before 18th February 1927. The words of the Explanation "or ever to have required registration" makes this point quite clear, and Act 2 of 1927 does apply to the document dated 8th May 1922, which is a document of the description given in the Explanation, and did not require to be registered.