Muruganandam vs. Muniyandi (Died) Through Lrs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 652
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 6543 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No(s). 10893 OF 2021

MURUGANANDAM ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS

MUNIYANDI (DIED) THROUGH LRS. …RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH
Date: 2025.05.08
17:56:45 IST
Reason:
sale dated 01.01.2000, the respondent agreed to sell his property
upon receiving part consideration of Rs. 5000/- and also put the
1


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
1
to institute a suit for specific performance of the agreement and
also for a permanent injunction.
4. Pending disposal of the suit, the appellant filed an
2
interlocutory application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with
3
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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 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

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’.
2


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.
3


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 Court in S. Kaladevi v. V.R.
4
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:

4
(2010) 5 SCC 401.
4


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:

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
5


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.
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.

………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J.
[JOYMALYA BAGCHI]
NEW DELHI;

MAY 08, 2025

6