08 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India recently in Muruganandam v/s Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs. overturned decisions by the Madras High Court and a Trial Court, allowing an appellant to introduce an unregistered and unstamped document dated January 1, 2000, as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The case centered on the interpretation of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The appellant had filed a suit seeking specific performance of an alleged sale agreement from January 1, 2000, claiming part payment and possession of the property. A subsequent agreement on September 1, 2002, allegedly fixed the sale price, with further payments made over time. When the respondent failed to execute the sale deed, the appellant filed a suit.

During the trial, the appellant sought to bring the original January 1, 2000 document on record, explaining that it had been mixed with other papers, though a photocopy was already with the plaint. Both the Trial Court and the High Court dismissed this request, primarily citing that the document was unstamped and unregistered, thus barred under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the matter, found that the lower courts had overlooked a crucial proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. This proviso explicitly states that an unregistered document affecting immovable property, though required to be registered, "may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance... or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument."

Citing its own precedent in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, the Supreme Court reiterated that an unregistered sale deed can be admitted in evidence, not as proof of a completed sale, but as evidence of an oral agreement of sale in a specific performance suit. Given that the appellant intended to use the document as proof of an oral agreement, the Court concluded that its admission was permissible under the proviso to Section 49.

The Supreme Court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the contents or ultimate validity of the document, leaving it open for the respondent to contest these aspects at the trial level.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and directing that the document dated January 1, 2000, be permitted to be brought on record in the specific performance suit.

Section 17, Registration Act - 1908  

Section 49, Registration Act - 1908  

Registration Act, 1908  

Section 35, Indian Stamp Act - 1899  

Indian Stamp Act, 1899