SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Tuesday, July 01, 2025
Printed For: M/s LAXMI COMPLEX PVT LTD
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1067
In the Supreme Court of India
(BEFORE P.S. NARASIMHA AND JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.)
Muruganandam … Appellant(s);
Versus
Muniyandi (Died) through Lrs. … Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No(s). 6543 of 2025 Arising Out of Slp (C) No(S).
10893 of 2021
Decided on May 8, 2025
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. B Karunakaran, Adv., Mr. Goviganesan, Adv., Mr. Anoop Prakash
Awasthi, AOR, Ms. Shruti Vaibhav, Adv., Mr. Shubham Dubey, Adv., For
Petitioner(s)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the order passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in CRP.PD. No. 2828 of 2015 dated 26.02.2021,
whereby the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed
against the order passed by the Trial Court on 21.04.2015 dismissing
the interlocutory application filed by the appellant seeking permission
to place on record a document dated 01.01.2000.
3. Short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows. It is
the case of the appellant that on the basis of an agreement of sale
dated 01.01.2000, the respondent agreed to sell his property upon
receiving part consideration of Rs. 5000/- and also put the appellant in
possession of the property. Subsequently, i.e. on 01.09.2002, it is
alleged by the appellant that the parties have agreed that the property
should be sold at the rate of Rs. 550 per cent and in furtherance of the
said transaction the appellant also paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and is
said to have paid balance consideration from time to time. However, as
the respondent was not taking any steps for executing the sale deed,
he was compelled to institute a suit1 for specific performance of the
agreement and also for a permanent injunction.
4. Pending disposal of the suit, the appellant filed an interlocutory
application2 under Order 7, Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the
3
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 , for bringing on record and marking the
document dated 01.01.2000. In the said application, the appellant
averred that for genuine reasons he was unable to produce the said
document, which got mixed up with other documents. He averred that
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Tuesday, July 01, 2025
Printed For: M/s LAXMI COMPLEX PVT LTD
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a photocopy of the said document was anyway enclosed with the plaint
and therefore the respondent/defendant will not in any way be
prejudiced if the prayer in the interlocutory application is allowed and
the original of the said document is received and marked.
5. Learned Trial Court by order dated 21.04.2015 dismissed the said
application holding that the reasons for not producing the original is not
convincing and also that the said document was unstamped and
unregistered and as such barred under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1989, and that Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
6. The appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court
and by the order impugned before us the High Court held that the
document was unstamped and unregistered and cannot be brought on
record.
7. Though notice was issued on 30.07.2021 and the case was
adjourned from time to time, the respondents have not entered
appearance. By order dated 22.03.2022 this Court recorded that service
upon respondent no. 4 is deemed to have been completed in terms of
order dated 29.11.2021. However, the case was further adjourned from
time to time for almost two years and we have now decided to dispose
of this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts below
have disregarded the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act
which allows tendering of documents that endorses an oral agreement
of sale. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of this
4
Court in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram . He also submitted that
reliance on Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act was not correct in as
much as the document was executed on 01.01.2000.
9. Having considered the matter in detail, 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 proviso
also enables the said document to be received in evidence of a
collateral transaction. Section 49 reads as follows:
“49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be
registered.—No document required by section 17 [or by any
provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered
shall—
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such
property or conferring such power, unless it has been
registered:
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Tuesday, July 01, 2025
Printed For: M/s LAXMI COMPLEX PVT LTD
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.”
10. In Kaladevi (supra), this Court has held that an unregistered
document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit seeking
specific performance. The relevant portion from the decision is as
follows:
“12. 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
affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered 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. By virtue of the proviso, therefore, an
unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs.
100 and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a
contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an
unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an
evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by
registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in
evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral
agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an
endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral
agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of 1908 Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. 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. Under these facts and
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant can be
permitted to introduce the said document dated 01.01.2000. 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.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Tuesday, July 01, 2025
Printed For: M/s LAXMI COMPLEX PVT LTD
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the
judgment and order passed by the High Court in CRP.PD. No. 2828 of
2015 and direct that the I.A. No. 1397 of 2014 in OS No. 78 of 2012 for
marking document dated 01.01.2000 is allowed.
13. No order as to costs.
———
1
O.S. No. 78 of 2012 before the District Munsiff Court, Madurantakam (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Trial Court’).
2
I.A. No. 1397 of 2014.
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’.
4
(2010) 5 SCC 401.
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.
