CASE TITLE: MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS. VERSUS M/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD & ORS.
The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Respondent claimed ownership and protection from dispossession based on the 1982 sale agreement (“original agreement”) which was never registered as mandated under the Registration Act. Later on, the original agreement was claimed to be validated by the Assistant Registrar in 2006.
Supreme Court Setting aside the High Court’s decision which granted protection to the Respondent from dispossession based on 1982 sale agreement, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran noted that the defect of non-registration of a 1982 sale agreement cannot be cured upon its validation in 2006 without taking into fresh transaction.
The Court noted that Section 23 of the Registration Act prescribes four-months’ time for presenting a document for registration from the date of its execution. The proviso to Section 34 also enables the Registrar to condone the delay, if the document is presented within a further period of four months, on payment of a fine.
In this context, the Court observed: “The agreement of 1982, the original one and the revalidated one, cannot result in a valid title, merely for reason that the subsequent instrument had been registered.” Thus, the Court found that the High Court erred in granting protection to the Respondent based on the unregistered agreement to sell.
The Supreme Court ruled that when the original sale agreement remained unregistered, then it cannot result in a valid title merely on the ground that a subsequent transaction based on the said unregistered sale deed was registered.
