Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)S.Kaladevi vs V.R.Somasundaram & Ors on 12 April, 2010
11. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that a document
required to be registered, if un-registered, can be admitted in evidence as
evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. A judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court published in 2010 (4) MLJ 529 [S.Kaladevi Vs.
V.R.Somasundaram and others] is cited, wherein, it is stated that "15. The issue
before us is only with regard to the admissibility of unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 in
evidence and, therefore, it is neither appropriate nor necessary for us to consider the contention
raised by learned counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of suit as framed by the
plaintiff or the circumstances in which the sale deed was executed. If any issue in that regard had
been struck by the trial Court, obviously, such issue would be decided in accordance with law.
Suffice, however, to say that looking to the nature of the suit, which happens to be a suit for specific
performance, the trial Court was not justified in refusing to admit the unregistered sale deed dated
27.02.2006 tendered by the plaintiff in evidence. 16.... By admission of an unregistered sale deed
in evidence in a suit for specific performance as evidence of contract, none of the provisions of
1908 Act is affected; rather Court acts in consonance with proviso appended to Section 49 of the
1908 Act. "
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Deivanai Ammal vs Kumarayee Ammal on 24 October, 2008
8. To substantiate this claim a Judgment of this Court published in
2009 (2) L.W. 457 [Deivanai Ammal Vs. Kumarayee Ammal and others] is
cited, wherein, it is stated that "13.. In such view of the matter, this Court is also of the
view that the document assailed, naley, unregistered sale deed has to be received at this stage and
the respondents are at liberty to object it at the time of marking through defendants and the Court
below shall decide the legal enforceability of the document at the time of final hearing of the case".
N.Subhash Chand Jain vs M/S Uniply Industries Limited on 10 December, 2009
10. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is further stated that the
trial Court can not refuse to accept the document at the first instance. It is
further stated that the parties are at liberty to object for the marking of the
documents and the Court can consider the same at that stage only. A judgment
of this court published in 2011 (2) CTC 258 [N.Subhash Chand Jain Vs.
Uniply Industries Limited] is cited, wherein, it is stated that "However, it is upto
the respondent to raise objections relating to admission when the documents are marked by the
defendants. The Lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "
1