Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed an appeal arising from a High Court order rejecting a plea to introduce an unregistered and unstamped sale agreement into evidence. The Court directed that the interlocutory application for marking the document dated 01.01.2000 be allowed, thereby setting aside the judgments of the High Court and Trial Court. The Bench held that such a document could be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The matter originated from a civil suit for specific performance filed before the District Munsiff Court, Madurantakam. The appellant claimed that a sale agreement was executed on 01.01.2000 by the respondent, who allegedly agreed to sell a property after receiving part consideration of ₹5,000 and putting the appellant in possession of the property. Subsequently, on 01.09.2002, the parties purportedly agreed on a revised sale rate of ₹550 per cent, against which the appellant paid an additional ₹10,000 and allegedly continued to pay the balance over time.

Also Read: Courts Are Not As Fragile As Flowers To Wither And Wilt | Supreme Court Declines Contempt Action Over Scandalous Remarks But Warns That Hate Speech Must Be Dealt With An Iron Hand

As the respondent failed to execute the sale deed, the appellant instituted a civil suit for specific performance along with a prayer for permanent injunction. During the pendency of this suit, the appellant filed I.A. No. 1397 of 2014 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to place on record and mark the original document dated 01.01.2000.

In the interlocutory application, the appellant claimed that he had enclosed a photocopy of the document along with the plaint but was unable to produce the original earlier due to it being inadvertently mixed up with other documents. He contended that allowing the document to be introduced would not prejudice the respondent’s case.

The Trial Court, by its order dated 21.04.2015, dismissed the application. The Court reasoned that the appellant's justification for the delayed production was unconvincing. It also held that the document was unstamped and unregistered, thereby rendering it inadmissible under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989, and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed CRP.PD. No. 2828 of 2015 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order, concurring that the document could not be admitted as it was neither stamped nor registered. The Civil Revision Petition was accordingly dismissed on 26.02.2021.

Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. Despite notice being issued on 30.07.2021, the respondents failed to appear. The Court recorded completion of service upon respondent no. 4 by 22.03.2022 and, after several adjournments, decided to finally adjudicate the matter.

The appellant's counsel argued before the Supreme Court that both the Trial Court and the High Court erred in failing to apply the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. He submitted that an unregistered document can be tendered in evidence in a suit for specific performance. In support of this, he relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401, which held that such documents may be admissible for limited purposes.

The Court, after examining the contentions and record, stated: "We are of the opinion that the prayer of the appellant in the interlocutory application falls under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act which provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance."

The Bench further recorded: "The proviso also enables the said document to be received in evidence of a collateral transaction."

Quoting the relevant statutory language, the Court noted: "Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument."

Addressing the reliance on Kaladevi, the Court recorded: "The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document... may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument."

On the facts of the case, the Court observed: "It is also evident from the plaint that the document dated 01.01.2000 is referred to and in fact a photocopy of the said document is filed along with the plaint. It is the case of the appellant that the document sought to be brought on record is intended only to be used as a proof of the oral agreement of sale and that it is permitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act."

Also Read: Jammu And Kashmir High Court Dismisses Compensation Plea | Says “Aerial Right Of Way Remains With State” And “Disputed Questions Of Fact Cannot Be Decided In Writ Jurisdiction”

Finally, the Court stated: "We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the contents of the document and it is also open for the respondent/defendant to raise and contest the relevancy and validity of the document as are permissible in law and it is for the Trial Court to consider the submissions and pass appropriate judgment/order as it considers appropriate."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in CRP.PD. No. 2828 of 2015. The Court directed that I.A. No. 1397 of 2014 in OS No. 78 of 2012 for marking the document dated 01.01.2000 is to be allowed.

The Court made no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. B Karunakaran, Advocate; Mr. Goviganesan, Advocate; Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Shruti Vaibhav, Advocate; Mr. Shubham Dubey, Advocate

Case Title: Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) Through LRs

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 652

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6543 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10893 of 2021

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi

[Read/Download order]