In Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (D) Through LRs, Civil Appeal No. 6543 of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) No. 10893 of 2021, the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether an unregistered document, claimed to evidence an oral agreement of sale, could be admitted in a suit for specific performance. The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court in CRP.PD. No. 2828 of 2015, which had upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of the appellant’s interlocutory application seeking to mark the unregistered document dated 01.01.2000.
Case History and Parties’ Claims
The appellant, Muruganandam, filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction before the District Munsiff Court, Madurantakam (O.S. No. 78 of 2012). The suit was based on an agreement of sale dated 01.01.2000, pursuant to which the respondent had allegedly received part consideration of ₹5,000 and delivered possession. A subsequent oral agreement on 01.09.2002 allegedly revised the sale rate to ₹550 per cent, with further payments made by the appellant.
An interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1397 of 2014) was filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC to place on record the original agreement dated 01.01.2000. The Trial Court rejected the application on 21.04.2015, finding the reason for non-production unconvincing and further holding the document inadmissible due to being unstamped and unregistered under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act.
On revision, the High Court upheld this order, observing that the document was inadmissible.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, considered the appellant’s argument that the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 permitted the use of unregistered documents as evidence of a contract in suits for specific performance.
Referring to its earlier ruling in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401, the Court reaffirmed that:
“An unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance… 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… under the proviso to Section 49 of [the Registration Act].”
The Court noted that the document dated 01.01.2000 was already referred to in the plaint and a photocopy had been filed along with it. The appellant’s contention was that the document was being introduced only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale. The Court found this permissible under the proviso to Section 49.
It also clarified that no opinion was being expressed on the contents or validity of the document, and the respondent would be free to contest its relevancy and admissibility as per law before the Trial Court.
Decision
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court, and directed that the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1397 of 2014) in O.S. No. 78 of 2012 be allowed, permitting the marking of the document dated 01.01.2000.
There was no order as to costs.
Citation: Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (D) Through LRs, Civil Appeal No. 6543 of 2025
