Skip to content


Challapalli Appalaswami and anr. Vs. Konduru Appalaswami and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in124Ind.Cas.606
AppellantChallapalli Appalaswami and anr.
RespondentKonduru Appalaswami and ors.
Cases ReferredDyal Singh v. Indar Singh
Excerpt:
registration (amendment) act (ii of 1927) - retrospective nature--agreement granting receipt of consideration of over rs. 100, admissibility of, without registration. - .....l.r. 1372 : 31 c.w.n. 125 : 28 p.l.r. 10 (p.c.) where their lordships held that an agreement of sale, wherein payment of premium, or whole or part of the consideration, amounting to rs. 100 or more is acknowledged or recited, is inadmissible in evidence if not registered. subsequent to that decision, the indian legislature has interfered, and by act ii of 1927, which in express terms is said to be retrospective, the legislature has restored the law relating to the admissibility of such documents to the law as it was understood here prior to the above privy council decision. an explanation has been added to section 17 by the registration act ii of 1927 which is to the following effect:a document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immoveable property shall not.....
Judgment:

Anantakrishna Iyer, J.

1. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decision of the first Court relying on the decision of the Privy Council reported as Dyal Singh v. Indar Singh 98 Ind. Cas. 508 : 53 I.A. 214 : 551 M.L.J. 788 : A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 94 : 24 A.L.J. 807 : (1926) M.W.N. 602 : 3 O.W.N. 634 : 24 L.W. 396 : 44 C.L.J. 97 : 7 P.L.T. 661 : 28 Bom. L.R. 1372 : 31 C.W.N. 125 : 28 P.L.R. 10 (P.C.) where their Lordships held that an agreement of sale, wherein payment of premium, or whole or part of the consideration, amounting to Rs. 100 or more is acknowledged or recited, is inadmissible in evidence if not registered. Subsequent to that decision, the Indian Legislature has interfered, and by Act II of 1927, which in express terms is said to be retrospective, the Legislature has restored the law relating to the admissibility of such documents to the law as it was understood here prior to the above Privy Council decision. An explanation has been added to Section 17 by the Registration Act II of 1927 which is to the following effect:

A document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immoveable property shall not be deemed to require, or ever to have required registration, by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of an earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.

2. That being so, the ground on which the lower Appellate Court reversed the decision of the first Court is no longer available. I accordingly reverse the decision of the lower Appellate Court and. remand the appeal to that Court for disposal according to law.

3. Costs will abide the result. Standup in respect of the second appeal memorandum will be refunded to the appellant.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //