Merely on the ground that the documents in favor of the Appellant are unregistered the Appellant cannot be non-suited without a trial, especially when the decree for specific performance was an ex-parte decree. This judgment was delivered by single judge bench comprising hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh at Delhi High Court in the matter of Vateena Begum v. Shamim Zafar & anr. [CM Appl. 21460 – 63 of 2020].
The present appeal challenges the impugned order dated 13th August, 2020 by which the Executing Court has rejected the objections filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 CPC. The admitted facts of the case are:
The appellant purchased a property by way of General Power of attorney, Agreement to sell and Purchase, Affidavit, Will, Possession letter and Receipt of Money for consideration of Rs. 9,00,000. Mr. Dilawar Hussain Malik executed these documents on 02nd July, 2020. The respondents alleged that they bought the property from Mr. Dilawar Hussain Malik on 02nd July, 2020 and the money consideration for the same was Rs. 6,00,000 out of which Rs. 3,00,000 was paid to the seller. The agreement to sell and receipt was executed on the same day. The trial court passed an ex-parte decree for specific performance which was in favor of the respondents.
The Hon’ble High Court while deciding upon the matter held that, “the impugned order is set aside. The Executing Court would frame issues and adjudicate the objections after receiving evidence. Needless to add this Court has not examined the legality or the validity of the documents relied upon by the Appellant and the Respondents, or any other averments on merits. Considering that the decree in the present case was passed way back in 2002, the Executing Court shall decide the objections within a period of six months. The original documents which were handed over during the court hearing be returned to the respective counsel upon proper acknowledgment. The same be produced before the executing court. The Registry of this Court to scan the documents before the same are returned to the Ld. Counsels for the parties.”
The court placed its reliance on Suraj Lamps and Industries v. State of Haryana [183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) where the court held that “no title can be conferred upon the appellant, based on unregistered documents.” The court further held that “no trial would be required as even if these documents are taken on file as evidence, by virtue of them being unregistered documents, they would not be valid and would confer no title. Accordingly, the court held that no trial would be required and the objections were dismissed.”
