-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUET BENCH AT DPIARWAD 'T
DATED TI-HS THE 27TH DAY OF AUG§_1é':*',' .
BEFORE
THE H()N'8LE MRS .:Us'i£f:c£§.-3,V.'i~m{*;ARA'r};%z§A. 7
REGULAR sEco:m__APPE5'L NO.89 f_¥_;' 1.
BETWEEN: V V ' V ' V
s12: M&HABALESHW.§,R'~SAT2§PIf§§ 2€.::r§L§i§e:A1~:131, H H
AGE: 72 YEARS, occ:'--m~:21 3.; Bgtszngss, _
R/OI~§UKERI5913O9 . _
DISTRICT§3EI,GAUM,"""*--.1" * 1 «V ..APPELLAN'}'
(BY $31 13.3. "
. S'E%1vgx.NANb EASAWANNEPPA 'I'UBACE~i1,
AGE: . 55 .YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
V J. we »3;9.2.A*R ROAD, HUKERI 591 309,
. "BELGAUM.
B;iALL§'KARJUN BASAWANNEPPA '1"'U$ACHI,
.. AGE: 47 YEARS, occ: SERVICE,
rm) BAZAR ROAD, HUKERI 591 309,
" E)§S'1'RIC'I'BELGAUM.
SMT vasarm,
w/HL:KERI'59.13£:-9," --
D1s'PR1c1'1':3,ELuA'LI:v:_-- ~
, SR1VIJAY_Ai§AT§;APPf&b;éA§:'r¢1 EQQAPPA BANDAI,
AGE: 43.. .YE:j'-3-.1%?S, OCC: SERVICE,
Ii'/'C3 IBENIWAD, TALUK HUKERI 591 309,
BELGAUM.
V' ;1»a;sm ENDRA,
W310 GURUSI-IIDDA PATIL,
"AGE: 41 YEARS, 000: HOUSEHOLD worm,
'V 'Rio BASAV comm, saxurm ROM},
" BEL€3:£&I.}'¥vI, :3:s:*mc'r BELGAUM 590 00:. .. RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE
\
%_~.
DATED 12.1.2092′ PASSED IN R.A.No.9/2003_—-A’r’ED”-,
:8.1.2003 PASSED IN 0.s.No.35/2000 ON *;.’.H_E~ m,E–..-:>Fv–wTHI§,
CIVIL JUDGE(JR.{3N}, HUKKERI.
THIS REGULAR SEC_OND APPEAL. B’EIN$”‘%i.E1fx:RD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGM’EN”i’. AND._ COMINQS ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT T§*IIS._DAY,.?’I’HE COURT
DELIVERED Ti-IE P’OLE,OWII§.5Gi =
the is directed against the
jui!;gInc::3.£VVV’Léi2;:~1. 12/01/2007 passes} by the
civii» J’u§gc{$éfii§r Division), Hukkcri, in Regular
fxppsal confirming the fiudgment and decree
% ‘A . 115191 /2663 passed by the learned Civil Judgc{JuJ:1ior
b iv5sji¢::;; in O.S.No.35/2000 with regand to the
A the relief of specific pcrfommce of contract,
V’ x For the sake of ocnvexzience, the parties shall be
referred to in terms of their status before the trial Court:
3. The plaintiff had filed Q.S.No.35/ 2000 seeking specific
performance 0f ageemant of Saki: dated 25.11.1988
fl
Q-»_
executed by the faizher of defendant Nos
altemafive relief of zecovtzzy of advance s
paid to defenciant Nos. 1 to 4 with ‘A
per annum.
4. The ag1*een1Vc1:_1:f:*,x(as%V: fotgr gtmms of land
in Sy.No.37AV/_3: 1+4′ property had come
to the shasfé 1 to 4 by virtue of
2: ‘E301 1984 and that he had
ag:v.E§:i’c’}V;V to the piaintifi for a
co1£:’~:id’«E*,I:’7a1iio–1;.;VV and had received a sum of
R_s.3,O(‘}C-,1’–‘by_’vw.<§y_béf"'b%é1dvance and it was agreed that the
amount of Rs. 19,000] — would be paid
' at_ of mgistration 9f the sale deed. it was further
H " Q16 vendor would get the suit property converted
land to non-agictfimrai land and Within
AA ' 0_;'1c £1:oni;h after conversion of the land he would execute a
'iiigistcmd saze deed in favour of the plaintifl' but that the
fifixer of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (me to (ma: reason or the ether
Went on postponing the registration of the sale deed, though,
%
the plaintifl was reaéy and to pan
agreement and subsequently,:=_the:_-£zatt?3$i=,§f.'deféL£§ant::v{t'os. ':
to 4 died on 03/03; 1997; 1; the" _t}$32§Ot§/ iégs
suit schedule property <V:l:eii'a:1::§.§izv§1:1t'1V§?~Ios.. 1 to 4 in
favour of dcf¢n{iant"'F€os. légal notice was
issued by the 'tA2_1::V1' which a reply was
given on was sent to all the
dcfend?;£it§"'§ii'" a reply was givsn on
the suit was filed on
plaintiff filed a. suit for specific
p€IfOI;.Vfii?;ttIC'f3VV!<)'f éttqifictiégent dated 25/11/1988 and in the
'f§t§1"«It:.c:ove1y of the aévance amount of Rs.3,G00/ —
t " » at the rate of 18% per annum.
‘{)1:§freceipt of summons anti notice: from the trial Court,
AA _dezf’e’xa:élant Nos}. to 4 appeared and written statement was
* by defendant No.1 which was adopted by defendant
Nos. 2 to 4; iilefendant £493.} to 4 contended that the
ayeement dated 25/31/1988 was not binding on them
though it was executed by their late father and that they had
%
sold the emim land bearing S_v.No. .37A;(é,§j44eé’lt igé1Liaineg.¢ rim
suit property to defendant Nosi-5 ii) an 5
that there was no cause of_a}.etion fer the
6. Defendant’ fimfeir statement
eoniendeed that 4 acres 3 guntas
in the names had been
enterecii’ respect of the suit land
anti’ agreement of sale executed
by 1 to 4 in favour of the plaixatifi’
and iL!1C:V’Er”§tEiS not binding on them. They
_*’a}ite:i’1ii:afiVyelyA’eo:1te;ided that in case, the Court concluded
A V”‘tI:1at,_the:a;:;{i13ement to sell dated 25/ 1 1/1988 was to be given
H * :&.efi”ee.t the consideration amount pend’ by them had to
Be “beck to them by defenciants 1 to 4.
” On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that late Sri
Basavanneppa Mailappa Tilbachi, the
father of defendants No.1 to 4 has
executed an agreement dated.
agreeing to sell the :s1ié:’sc:;ee::11e
in favour of . t”Qr V ?f
conskieratioa of-Rs.22;0OO/j Qtfcacczifgfefii V
Rs.3,()O0/- as V ‘ V
2. Whethcf always been
rcady am; rip ;;§e;%£c;::;n=1a.is part of
_.thé;V<;onti§act?
3: afihggzthér’ t1:e% a;1¢g¢d ] men: is binding
em ‘ér:iv1idants§””V
‘A 4.” » édxéftmdants S to 10 are the
‘ t_)Vo3;1aS:’1dé’-piirchasers of the land bearing
R.’S’.r¢9…3*zA/3:1+4 measuring 10 acne 27
_v out of which suit property is a
What reliefs the plaintifi’ is entitied to’?
6. What oxdm: or deems?
3. In support of the case, the piaintifi’ examined himself
as PW-1 and examined PWS.-2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P–
%
-3…
1 to P-8 and closed his side. O;1»bcha§I'”‘éf
to 4, defendant No.1 gofi ”
marked Ex.D-1 and Ol1.’bf’:]__T1a1fVi)f_§i6f§:I1x;E;%fi1t .NQ§.$ .16,
defendant No.7 was DW-2″:<fl:0se§:i their side.
9. Based on a13″civv.’£’:;:vii:v’–.;’$videncc on necord,
the trial ‘V 2 and 4 in the
i in the aflirmative and
regarding the relief of
@:.gz§cment but decreed the suit on
the aiféz:i;1a’t:iv¢ Bf recovery of advance amount of
– \!§?ithv«.iz)§i2ItSt at the rate of 18% per ammm from
‘ “th¢ ~vt;1é§;t¢:-%’«a:;f’ag1eement in. from 25/11/1988 till thc date of
H ‘- at the rate of 1?/6 per amtmm fmm the date of
realisation.
Not being satisfied with the said judgment: and decree,
T the plainfift” flied Regular Appeaz No.9] 2003 before the
learned Civil Jud.ge(Sem’or Division), I-fukeri. rfhe first
apeiiatc Court raised the following points fer consideration:
%
1. Whether the impugned fildgment _
the lower court is not sustainabie .fof’~i£s’
and erroneous approach:-iiinot
oral and documentary ‘z:-,v1v
relief of specific baé.ed-on_.’§aIleged
agreement of _E;’:_.P-:1 e.:avm~ of plfi”-applt?
2. As to what order?’ n *
answeietif in the negative and dismiseati the
Reg|1]éiI.,_’AppeVa1 the judment and decree of
.. V
-V. ‘l”h;: unstiecessfill plaintifi has filed this Reguhr
” V’ T_
fi .12. V ‘ heard Sri B.S.i<Iamate, iearned counsel for the
He submits that in EXP-I time was not the
V " I esseiace of contract and it was the obligaiaion on the 9311: of
toe vendor to get the suit schedule land converted finm
1%
-10..
ayicuitulal use to non~a$’icu1tura1 use the
of defendants 1 to 4 (vendor) .V
contract, the pIaintifi’was§9nstfé1ittéd to keggal it:
the year 1999–~2(){)0 and siiktgéquerttiy.
specific 1C)€I’fOI’II1€ElJ£i(‘T2t2~~._”Of ._of He flzrther
submits that both themselves
by raising ..thA<V~A::V 'ttte suit and waiver of
right npecific performance and
Th€Eiii°£3I'CD ought to intervene and
the fiatrformancc of the contract. While
aotvertingta Attjttt-t 54j.ot the Limitation Act, he submits that
. Said Axtiiclcvgqtqtddes for three years time from the date of
» and themforc since he caused legai
_ only in the year .t999–~2ooo and after receiving
"f.1:1ev'-.V:ttI?Lp:i:}I dated 19/02/2000 has filed the suit on
A. , t_'O8/V€Ii..3/ 2000, ttteretote, the suit is filed within time: in terms
VV the seccxzd part of Afiticie 54 and hence the judgments
and <it::ac:.re:es of thf: Ctsurts btlow are to ba Ievcrscd.
}
-11-
13. He mam submits that the plamtafi had”:é§11v%_iya$v.Abecn
ready and Willing to perform his paxtof «£3313;
father of the defendant Nos. 1 ”
converted into non-a@icultuI*ai;”1«lari’§iT ‘the J
essence of otmtract .,thtr
relationship with the fathc;f__§f»vd¢f::;1da1.1.it’ N9; {Etc 4, did not
take any steps bevtxivi-v§;:Ex1_ get the sale deed
registemd. The icounsgl éppcllant has made
evidence on record and has
which shall be advcrtcd to Later
01}.
,_;f;4. Ex.f5′–i.._ i:sv the} agreement dated 25/11/1983, Ex?-2 is
«. F}¢cio 1{iV gr Rights, Ex. P–3 and 5 are the copies of the legal
and 6 am the zepiies and Ex.P-7 is the
of the decree in O.S.No.230/ 1994.
15, __ 1~ In a Stlif; for specific perfformmce, the misvant points
‘ . flfifli’ consideration am as to wlmther the plaintifi’ was ready
and Willing to perform his part of the contract; the defence
&
-12- ._ .
available to the defendants an& the p1UViSi0I1&§–:C3§..’ 53C;Cti0flS
10, 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act;
question which arises -in “”appca}’ isl
unregistered agmement to sci} sfibséqfiiezst in J
respect of the very ‘stmiisactgioil
pmvailcs. It is a1sQ__noficed…f,ijat thy: plsiiltiff not sought
for canceflation of Ts-,a1z»::_ 09/03; 1933 on the
basis of which vdefe;1€i’anVtf&N6s,_”~5_ rcsistcé the suit
of .~’i’];£€*; “Etc be scan as to whether
de§:nda:1″i bonafide purchasers Without
notice7;*.._ V _
X Ex; R1′ the agmement executed by the father of
“€.i£:fe:;dant Nos.” “” to 4 dated 25.11.1933 and Pw.2 is
ésiiness to Ex.P1 and PW.3 is the scribe of Ex.P1.
‘A ‘._””‘VI”h8£’I€. “£110 dispute as to the execution of the said
agziséiment, since both the courts have held that Ex.P1 was
” , Executed by the father of dcisndam Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of
the plaintifii There is further no dispute: that as on the date
of the agreement, the suit property was agricuitural L-and am}
-13-
thai it was agreed to sell the same after conversi(.i§’»tQ non-
agricultural purpose by the father of de£end;m§”‘:o 4
and at his own expense and that themafigr dfifid
to be mastered on paymc11t: f -I of.__
Rs.19,000]-. ._ ._ 4 % L
17. A reading of is ,_th¢ ‘”‘~aVg’z”et:ment
question, makes it, .appam–nf; _ as ‘<3-j:1~.1:l:1(:r'§ date of the
agreement, the agxicultllral land
that __t0 be Suki. aftsr conversion for non-
agn"c«"u1t1'11*a~~ I' "a;idV that the vendor was bound to get
{he within one month and thereafter sale
to zegistemd in favour of the plaintifi" on
n consideration of Rs.19,000/-. Therefore,
A'–..theV__agr§é?:3d1cnt had specified certain obligations on the part:
T of vendor and time was not the essence of the <:<mtrav::t,
V' * inasmuch as the iand was to be sold as a converted land
within am: month after the date: of conversion fer which 119
speficic date was fixed. /34
-14-
18. It is aiso not in dispute that the suit property was not
converted into norragrietfltural land. However, what is of
I §
significance is that the plainfifi also did not initiate any steps
by finding out as to What was the cause of {;}.€?;vld£i}(f: fQI” the
father of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to get
converted to 3:101:-agriculirunal land and
same in the name of the n;ote*–.
that the agreement to seilsie datetfi legs}
notice was issued on _of the: only on
1. was fiied on 8.3.2000 when by then
the me; of res. 1 to 4 had died on 3.3.1997 and
the was sold by the defendant Nos. 5 to
‘ * .. ‘.Aeee:fi_ing to the plaintifi”, the iand was never eonverted
~_ land and it is the vendor who had
.tc ‘fxerfoxm his part of the contract, though the plaintiff
AA , e_wae’r.eady and willing to pay the baiance eonsixieraiion and
VV gaerfonn his Coauaet. It is subzxzitted by the learned ccmnsel
for the appellant that since the saie was to take place of new
fir
-35,
agricultural land, he Waited for the said convemion to take
place. However, there is no expianation on the part of the
plaintifi” as to what steps he tmk between 1988 till 1999 for
a period of eleven long years in carrier to get the e12j9_l:’- eehedule
property zegistereci in his name. The ]earned”fi_1e
appellant submits that since the suit
not converted into n0n–ag1ieu1{urai.Aia:;ci’.egn7§;1′ ‘g§–a.g§;{§;3_g§; 9fV.._
his cordial xeiationehip Witi1_£he férfiieer of defeeeiaxit
4, he did not initziate any étetion get the sale
deegi It is seen that after two years
ai’ter”tE_1eedemiee:» e£4’the”Gender, the plainfifi’ sent an legal
zgetiee yeer 1999 and the suit was filed on
during this imerrugnum period from
V the ezignal vendor had died and his heirs,
‘ A to the suit seheduie properties, sofl the same
on” #33/O3/1998 to defendant Nos. 5 to 10 by way of
‘ V. _ fiegistezed sake deed. Therefore in respect of the vexy same
praoperty there is an ageement of mice dated 25/$111988
which is sought to be interfered in the suit and the same is
resisted by the defendants on the basis of a registered sale
Xi
~16-
deed 09/031 1993 by which defendant Nos.’_.{“te–«’_V’t?§1e
property to defendant Nos. 5 to 1;} V 1 d 4′
20. According to the ca.se. of
the deceased Tubachi to the deed
his flavour as per wexvzdtw (rd). postponing
the said execution. evidence or
any concxevte”e§#_idcfiee of time between,
nthegyeaire years). Except the oral evidence of
“dfL:$;;£i)ac};1eé. the defendant Nos. 1 to 4
and ted’-eafiecute the registered sale deed and got
” 3Iega3..noficevVi$e«tv1ed in the month of November 1999 i.e.,
Bivfiionths after the death of the vendor, there is no
‘A or cogent evidence whatsoever given by the
piaidfifi for not taking steps to get the saie deed registered.
V’ , ddfigis signi&ant that in the mean While defendant Nos. 1 to 4
sold the suit prnlperty in favour of defendant Nos, 5 to 10 on
9.3.1998 and aficr the said mle the plaintifi’ got issued the
legal notice to defendants 1 to 4. /£4
/
-17..
21. This cktarly shows that the
matter and it is onjy after the of
defendants No. 5 to 10 that the ‘mg
ycar 2000. This conduct of
his fight under cfi01ii1ot”IV:§)c held that
the piaintifl’ was his pad of the
contract. éelay, the piaintifi is
not _p§;foImance of agmement
Ex.P1′;’~ . ‘1; .0
22. Specific Relief Act raises a
the breach of contract to transfer
~ pmperty cannot be adequately reiieved by
2 0′ ~corii1:>é1:sat;iOi1 in maney and in. such a case specific
of the contract may, in the disczetion of the
” enfoxced.
23. Section 16 of the Act speaks about the cimumgtanccs
under which specfic performance of contract cannot be
enforced in favour of a wrsan and delay is 0138 of the
N _
/
M13″
cixcumstances coming under thgsoopc Iii:
case of delay there are two $$§cc$§,§ cfiaghi 4]
beyond the period pmscribgd the Ac:
the second is delay in Wlm the
P€I»’i0d Of ~ acquire
right in tilt: in the facts and
of fiie five: rise to plea of
waiveri. ér to grant discretionary
xe;1ié:£'”vic:§.:{iV;tg112″ «sf: 24′(“>_’8;”‘
24. ‘$411 the’ learned counsel for the appellant
‘3’ha§ cirawn»Aiiiiyvatécntion to Article 154 of the Limitation Act
% ~3:p”_tI3.at the period of limitation is three years from
.”‘*fi1ev refusal and that in the instant case, time not
hfiing hfhe esaeacc of the contract and there being no refusal
x ‘T ._on £he part of the vendor, the plaintifi was jnstifieti in filing
” Niche cast: in the year 2090. ‘i’hc:efore, thtii deiay aspect has
no reievantm tn the mattsr. ,
—§9-
25. However, in the instant case: what is ;;§;’~.}Qc
noted is that Ex.P1 was executed on ”
father of defendant No.1
schcdllie property was scidfo fi’c._fc1?.dantV
9.3.1998 anal tlzxcrcaftcr t;_.f1:§::VVj;VVzVear 2050.
Although it can be was 55: {£16 essence of
the contract or wasLr:.<1ct:;_V the pariiitis. the
plaintifi" by Vtime tantamouzats to
waiver of his right to sue for
spccific'–.cf~cont{act for sale. The vendor died in
the yeaf' Q9? suit was filed thrccycars thereafizr
V-':c.jcc13;t£::ndi11g éeccascd had during his life time
V V' the saic deed, but the delay in filing the
it may be Within limitation period is a bar on
't1i.etq;_11cstion of madiness and wiiiinwcss. A mere dcaly in
AA ; to the court cannot negative the relief of specific
' fycrformance. The facts of the instant case are such that
there is 11¢ expianatien for filing the suit in the year 2000
when EX.P2 was entered into in the year 1998. Themfoxc,
-23-
the plaintifi’ cannot be enfifleei to the relief t1z1de5:S.£j:_ct§on 16
of the Specific Relief Act.
25. The next point to be considered we-aierle
defendants can succeed in view; Qfsecfipn :2aV:_¢.r_;1;e”s ‘cifi-:;:_
ReliefAct. ; – ~
27. Section 20 of the ._states the ~«j’u::is<iict:ion..*:1)
decree specific Itlsays that the
is "grant such relief merely because it is
discretion, however, is not to be
but must be based on sound and
., A judiclel principles. The Secfion. also specifies the
V in which the Court may properly exercise the
not to decree specific performance and it also
j When, in any appropriate case, a decree could be
u * given by pmper exercise of discretion. Swtion 20 is not an
exhaurstive provision, but merely illustrative as it 513 not
possible to define the cimumstanees in which equitable relief
could or could not be ganted. One of the grounds on which
%
-33-
this equitable relief is some times refused,
in the exericse of discretion, the .co,neluciӎf
is to be considered. If the deiajr, is
action, it amounts to iackfies. weivelf 5:”
plainfifi and he would be Belief. if
therefore, on a co1ie;i.{.ierat§;en;V’_be;f _efieux11etances of the
case, the Court to grant the relief
asked fox,
28!’-A fseetion 19 of the Act provides that,
1V1n1ess ‘aq'(1 “:contrary is proved, the Court shafl
the–b’1each of a contract 1:0 transfer immovable
V eazmot be adequately relieved by compensatieu in
‘: ..; B1.1t the said pxesumption is a xebuttable
§3:t§:;re1efion. Where the plainfifi’ claim’ in’ g specific
n ‘T ggexfermance of immovable property on the basis of an
9’ eyeement admittedly, does not requim the suit prosperty for
his own self but only Wants to seii away the same, the
presumption is rebutted. in such a case, the court need not
grant specific performamm of the contzraet to transfer the
RA
/
-23-
immevable property although there may be at
confxact.
29. Subsection (2) of
circumstances when mz~fi not to
decree specific cieeuefismnces axe
i11ust::ative
**** (i]*i::.When the cf the contract or the
I O§}fE€.1t?AC1i0;fVff£8′ pr_1.rties– at the time of entering into
; ‘oonfracif-oré Cfiramzstarmes under which the
‘ u:’xmtrc’u;_1 was Veniémici info are such that they give
,pIaa€_ntt’_’ff” unfair advantage over the
. A, defezzzsicsrzt. ”
a A. {if)V”‘9W2ere the pevfamzanoe of the contract
_ gwould involve some hardship to the defendant
a Vwhe_rt-‘ms, its non-perfonnanoe would involve rm
« on the piafntijf
(iii) Thai it makes it inequitable to enforce
specific perfomumee.
VV Whiie explaining these circumstances, Exylanation-I
speaks abeut unfair disadvantage. Explanation-ii relates to
hardship which is a circumstance in favour of the defendant,
While Explanations-iii and IV are in favour of the plaintifi
that in a case where the plaintifi has done substantial acts
/€»<
..g3_
in consequence of a contract capable of specific petfoxmance
or zefused specific performance, merely because .«t11ej'ee'z1_t1act
is not enforceable at thei nstance of the defend.a1'1t'_"–' V.
33. At this stage it is rekvant .t:o_eons.ider”
suit property by defendant Nos.v’*-.1 tcp”‘4.. defefidant
Nos. 5 t0 IO and as to whether 1t)
bonafide purchasers of the Nov.]3′?’–A/3; 1+4
including the suit feted vaittaiale consideration. The
defehdant Nos. 5 to 10 measures
4 aertee .10 gut sale deed was registered in their
name ext-.9.3. evidence Of SW2 is that at the time
eaie ottttheptbperty by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in favour
‘ “efAdet’e2;iti2~1:i3;’t_I\Eos. 5 to 3.0, it was clear that defendant Nos. 1
t’ . h 4v owners and that they had inherited the said
their father and on coming to know that it was
At ‘tt:3ta1tding in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 4, they
the same. As the agreement at Ex.P1 was not a
registered document, they had no tmtiee of the eame. in fact
by the time the plaintifi’ requested defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to
execute the registered sale deed in his flavour, by then the
fit
«-24-
saie was registered in favour of defendaQ3t__’Noe. V
fact after a period of one year eta’ ;V11ontE1e.:fie11;V’t:he.tlate§’. AV
of registration of the sale deed ee§:enda:§’£~Nd¢s.VV5
to 10, the plajntifi” got in
313333105 935 3115′ 0thf§it’~§9g€§£f’eV;tdettee_ to éfiow tiztat defendant
Nos. 5 to 10 had of Ex.P1 in favour
of the defendant Nos. 5 to
19 am of EXP}.
the Registration Act any document
if registeted Seetion 1? shall take effect as regards the
.. therein against every unregistered
A related to the same property and not being a
oitgefder, whether such umegistered document be of
the’. dsaiee nature as the registered document or not.
n to Thefefoxe, the Section fives priority to a registered
Qioeument, though subsequent to an earlier unregistered
decumem; A setbeequemz purchaser under a regetered deed
will not be presumed to have notice of the earlier ageement
to purchase, which is not registered when the owner is
-2 5…
remaining in powcssisrm. Section 50 cioes not inwziidate or
reader void in cariicz’ unmgstemd documefif “uwhich
Registration was optional, but merely depzzfiés tfficaby
in so far as this would interfcnt the z
its true intend of the subscquént in J
other words the exip1wessioi1._ ta1f<c efitct "in
means that the 1att_c:r éQcun.ie11t,V1;aV$:§pziority i.e.,
pmference over the Therefore, the
ddéfiiificnt may yield precedents to
§hcVVita'c"tc:r Further Secfion 50 of the Act
itsgxf i:;=. subkiggzt to docmnc of notice which is an
:A':('é}'~{Cf3}§fi{)_I1 i.e:A.'," '1"§-the:' subsequent registered txansfexee noticed
' ':_i:;e'v.;=,}a'1r_Ii¢::::} '£x'a11sact1'o11, he looses the priority to which he
" . % be entificd.
‘<32. 'Ex'1..~i;hr: instant case agreement Ex.P1 is an unregistered
x j d®13ihcnt which was not acteé upon by the parties
V "=.§§1bsequent to its executicm and (iefendant Neal to 4 the
$0118 of the vendor in Ex.PI executed the sale deed which
was re@'stcn=,d in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 10. Since
flee
«-26-
Ex.P1 is an u_meg’stered document and no
suit schedule property was _give_n to’ ‘V file”
defendant Nos. 5 to 10 caunotvlbe of -:
Ex.P1. Therefore, defefidagt
yurchasers urithout notice: 501″ i’:~h<? pI'iJ1Ci}31€
enunciated under "mat, eegisterec}. sale
{iced at Ex.D1 as against Ex.P2.
33. in View of tfje below were
justified in disx31iss§3;=g ‘flllfi However, both
the courts have _ “a1f:e:1;VzAa’:tj;irc:.’Q~~»%’reIief of recovery of
advance with interest and costs sinee
there is n£<)' operation of the decree by the
A endismrbed.
_ the meet}: Second Appeal is rejected at
._ the atage {inf admissflan.
Sd/~
Judge
KVN*