Explore a case where the court delved into the legal nuances surrounding the admissibility of an unregistered agreement to sell as a basis for obtaining a decree for permanent injunction. The court’s evaluation of the use of unregistered documents for collateral purposes and the subsequent analysis of the relief sought shed light on the complexities of property disputes and legal remedies available. Dive into the legal intricacies of this case that revolved around the interpretation of laws governing agreements and injunctions in property disputes.
Facts
- The learned first appellate Court dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant.
- The original defendant has appealed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court which confirmed the decision of the first appellate Court.
- The trial Court dismissed the suit of the original plaintiff due to failure in proving the agreement to sell and possession of the property.
- The first appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
- The High Court confirmed the decision of the first appellate Court in a Second Appeal.
- The respondent, who was the original plaintiff, filed Original Suit No 696 of 1997 seeking permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent disturbance of possession in the suit property.
- The suit was based on an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996.
- The appellant, who was the original defendant, filed a counter-claim in the suit seeking a decree of possession.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Arguments
- The original plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement to sell.
- The suit did not seek specific performance of the agreement to sell due to its unregistered nature.
- Both the first appellate Court and the High Court erred in passing a decree for permanent injunction and dismissing the counter-claim.
- The original defendant has appealed against the judgment and decree.
- The appellant’s counsel argues that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot support a decree for permanent injunction.
- The settled position of law allows an unregistered document to be used for collateral purpose.
- Both the first appellate Court and the High Court correctly passed a decree for permanent injunction based on the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996 for collateral purpose.
- The defendant was rightly restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondent.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Admission Irregularities in Educational Institutions
Analysis
- The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement to sell.
- An unregistered agreement to sell on a ten-rupee stamp paper cannot be used for any relief, including permanent injunction.
- Defendant filed counterclaim for possession, which was granted by the trial court.
- Unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence for seeking any relief.
- In certain cases, unregistered documents can be used for collateral purposes, but not as a basis for relief.
- Plaintiff cannot indirectly obtain relief that is otherwise not permissible.
- Plaintiff cleverly sought a relief of permanent injunction only
- No request for specific performance of the unregistered agreement to sell
- Unregistered document does not qualify for specific performance decree
- No relief can be granted based on clever drafting
- High Court and first appellate Court erred in granting permanent injunction to plaintiff and dismissing defendant’s counter-claim
Also Read: Quashing of Enhanced Tuition Fee in Private Medical Colleges
Decision
- The impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court is set aside
- The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction is quashed
- The counter-claim of the defendant is dismissed
- The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction is restored
Case Title: BALRAM SINGH Vs. KELO DEVI (2022 INSC 1011)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006733-006733 / 2022
