Topic
An unregistered agreement in Indian law refers to a contract for the sale or transfer of immovable property that lacks registration under the Registration Act, 1908, yet may still hold limited legal effect under specific provisions.
The Madras High Court upheld the trial court’s specific performance decree, holding that an unregistered resale agreement is enforceable under the proviso to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the party alleging forgery bears the burden of proof. It further held that the suit was not barred by limitation.
J&K&L High Court invalidated an unregistered mortgage-cum-sale agreement, affirming that the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property Act, 1997 overrides such instruments to protect migrant-owned land from unauthorized transfers. The ruling upholds eviction orders against occupants relying on defective agreements.
The West Bengal State Consumer Commission has ruled that an unregistered sale agreement can serve as valid evidence to establish a contract for specific performance, even in consumer disputes, under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. This clarifies that procedural non-registration does not automatically bar relief when the agreement reflects a binding intent to transfer immovable property, empowering consumers to enforce contractual rights without mandatory registration.
Bombay High Court rules that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act protects possession only as per the exact terms of the agreement. Constructed structures on open land, not covered in the agreement, do not enjoy protection, and failure to seek specific performance defeats the claim. The ruling underscores the need for precise alignment between possession and contractual terms in property disputes.
The NCLAT has ruled that unregistered profit-sharing agreements, even if historically honored, cannot override the statutory moratorium under IBC to claim possession of corporate debtor assets. This clarifies that only registered leases or lawful tenancies survive CIRP, empowering Resolution Professionals to evict unauthorized occupants without prolonged litigation.
Bombay High Court rules that unregistered sale agreements executed prior to land acquisition notification are admissible to determine market value, subject to a 25% deduction for development reserves. This holding ensures fair compensation for landowners while balancing equities in non-agricultural land disputes.
The Bombay High Court ruled that non-registration of a development agreement does not bar deemed conveyance under MOFA if the transactional history, possession, and statutory exemption under ULC prove the promoters' substantive rights. Landowners who availed ULC benefits are estopped from resisting conveyance, reinforcing statutory intent to protect flat owners' ownership rights.
The Madras High Court ruled that an unregistered sale agreement can be admitted in a specific performance suit under the Specific Relief Act, but the plaintiff must furnish clear documentary proof of readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration. This judgment reinforces the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs seeking enforcement of unregistered agreements, impacting property dispute litigation across Tamil Nadu.
Bombay High Court holds that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot create constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser, barring specific performance claims under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.