The Madras High Court on May 07, 2022 in the matter of Lakshmi Ammal and Others v. Gejaraj (died) and others, was of the view that the inadmissibility of the unregistered document will only be with respect to the protection sought under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and opined that even though the sale agreement was not registered, it can be acted upon as evidence for deciding the relief of specific performance.

In this case, the case of the plaintiff was the suit properties were owned by the defendants 2 to 5, who appointed defendant 1 as their Power of Attorney. The first defendant, acting as an agent entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- of which Rs.40,000/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement. The balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid within three years.

The plaintiffs submitted that he was willing to perform his part of the contract but the first defendant was deliberately trying to evade the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and later informed the plaintiff that the defendants had cancelled the power of attorney document. Meanwhile, the defendants were trying to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties which is why the plaintiffs filed the original suit. The first defendant submitted that it was the plaintiff who was not ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and that he had also accepted to hand over the possession of the suit properties. Since the Power of Attorney document was cancelled the first defendant asked the plaintiff to get the advance amount back from the other defendants. The other defendants took the stand that the first defendant did not act as per the conditions stipulated in the Power of Attorney document and did not properly maintain the account from the suit properties and the income yielded by the suit properties was also not given to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. They also contended that the sale agreement was a fabricated document and was created in collusion between the plaintiff and the first defendant and with an intention to grab the suit properties. It was pleaded that the suit was an orchestrated one and liable to be set aside.

The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth(Wright) Issar and Others (2018), wherein it was observed that a document is required to be registered, but if unregistered, can still be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.

Both the trial court and the lower appellate court did not possess any doubt with respect to the genuineness of the sale agreement.

This Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had established the execution of the sale agreement and also the payment of a substantial amount towards sale consideration and also his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Thus, he was entitled to the relief of a specific performance. Therefore, it was held that the decision of the lower appellate court was correct in law.