SC 1654 , 2010 (3 )ALLMR(SC)477 , 2010 (80 ) ALR 295 , 2010 (3 )ALT58 (SC ), 2010 (2 )ARC1 , 2010 (4 ) AWC 339 (SC), 2010 (I )CLR(SC)851 , 2010 INSC 205 , JT2010 (3 )SC 610 , 2010 (2 )KLT441 (SC ), (2010 )4 MLJ529 (SC ), 2010 (4 )MPHT211 , 2010 MPLJ500 (SC), 2010 (II )OLR182 , 2010 (II )OLR(SC )182 , 2010 (2 )RCR(Civil)824 , RLW2010 (2 )SC 1796 , 2010 (3 )SCALE641 , (2010 )5 SCC401 , [2010 ]4 SCR515 , 2010 (2 )WLN59 , ,MANU/SC/0246/2010
R.V. Raveendran#R.M. Lodha#2149SC3150Judgment/OrderAIC#AIR#AllMR#ALR#ALT#ARC#AWC#CurLR#INSC#JT#KLT#MANU#MLJ#MPHT#MPLJ#OLR#OLR#RCR (Civil)#RLW#SCALE#SCC#SCR#WLNR.M. Lodha,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document,Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document,Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document,Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document,Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document,Law of Evidence26565,26594,26595,26596,26597,26598,26599,26600,63517,26524 -->
MANU/SC/0246/2010
True Court CopyTM EnglishOLR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 3192 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1451 of 2009)
Decided On: 12.04.2010
Appellants: S. Kaladevi Vs. Respondent: V.R. Somasundaram and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.V. Raveendran and R.M. Lodha JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question is one of admissibility of an unregistered sale deed in a suit for specific performance of the contract.
3. The appellant and the respondents are plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the suit presented in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. 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 court and failing which execution of the sale deed by the court. She also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4. 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 consideration of Rs. 1,83,000/-. It was agreed that the sale deed, in pursuance of the oral agreement for sale, would be executed and registered on the same day. The plaintiff purchased the stamp papers; paid the entire sale consideration to the defendants; the defendants put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property and also executed a sale deed in her favour. On 27.02.2006 itself, the said sale deed was taken to the Sub- Registrar's office. The Sub-Registrar, however, informed that in view of an order of attachment of the suit property the sale ........