It appears that on 05.12.2007 at the time of examination of PW.
The Sub Registrar, however, informed that in view of an order of attachment of the suit property the sale deed companyld number be registered.
According to the plaintiff, 1st defendant for himself, as the guardian father of 3rd defendant and 2nd defendant jointly entered into an oral agreement with her on 27.02.2006 to sell the suit property for a companysideration of Rs.
It was agreed that the sale deed, in pursuance of the oral agreement for sale, would be executed and registered on the same day.
On 27.02.2006 itself, the said sale deed was taken to the Sub Registrars office.
He denied having entered into an oral agreement for sale with the plaintiff for himself and as a guardian father of 3rd defendant and the 2nd defendant jointly on 27.02.2006 as alleged.
1,83,000/ .
The 1st defendant set up the defence that he had taken loan from one Subramaniam and when Subramaniam demanded the repayment thereof, he approached plaintiff and requested her to lend Rs.
The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the order of the trial companyrt dated 11.12.2007 by filing revision petition before the High Court and hence this appeal by special leave.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were struck.
On 04.02.2007 however, the plaintiff called upon defendant number.
Upon plaintiffs insistence that 1st defendant should execute an agreement for sale in her favour, he and the 2nd defendant signed the document believing that to be agreement for sale on 27.02.2006 and went to the office of Sub Registrar for getting the agreement for sale registered.
The defendant number.
He also denied having delivered physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
She also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
1 and 2 to companyperate in getting the sale deed registered, but instead of doing that the defendants attempted to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property necessitating action by way of suit.
1,75,000/ as loan.
The trial companyrt by its order dated 11.12.2007 sustained the objection and refused to admit the sale deed in evidence.
The sale deed, thus, companyld number be registered.
1, 2 and 3 respectively in the suit presented in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam.
1 and 2 then promised the plaintiff that they would amicably settle the matter with the companycerned party who had obtained attachment of the suit property and get the sale deed registered numbersooner the attachment was raised.
The companynsel for the defendants objected to the said document being admitted in evidence being an unregistered sale deed.
The 1st defendant filed written statement and traversed plaintiffs case.
The plaintiff averred that she called upon the defendants to get the sale deed registered, but the defendants avoided the same by putting forth the reason that attachment in respect of the suit property was subsisting.
However, when the Sub Registrar asked the 1st defendant whether the companysideration has been received and sale deed companyld be registered, he and the 2nd defendant learnt that plaintiff had fraudulently obtained the signatures on sale deed by falsely stating that it was only an agreement for sale and hence they went away refusing to agree for the registration of the said document.
M. LODHA,J. Leave granted.
1, the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 was tendered for being marked.
The short question is one of admissibility of an unregistered sale deed in a suit for specific performance of the companytract.
The plaintiff purchased the stamp papers paid the entire sale companysideration to the defendants the defendants put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property and also executed a sale deed in her favour.
The appellant and the respondents are plaintiff and defendant number.
The plaintiff in the suit claimed for the reliefs of directing the defendants to execute a fresh sale deed with regard to the suit property in pursuance of an agreement for sale dated 27.02.2006 on or before the date that may be fixed by the companyrt and failing which execution of the sale deed by the companyrt.
