High Court grants specific performance in appeal, admits unregistered document as evidence under Registration Act.

The High Court allowed the appeal in a case involving specific performance of an unregistered agreement for a property. The court held that the unregistered document could be admitted as evidence under the Registration Act, contrary to the trial court's decision. Consequently, specific performance was granted to the appellant. The court upheld the trial court's findings on costs and earnest money, decreeing the suit in favor of the appellant and directing payment of the outstanding amount with interest. The cross-objection was dismissed with no cost order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Specific performance of agreement, admissibility of unregistered document, quantum of costs and refund of earnest money.

Analysis:

The judgment concerns a first appeal challenging a trial court's decision on a suit for specific performance of an agreement related to a property. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on issues of execution of the agreement and readiness and willingness to perform. However, the trial court rejected the specific performance claim solely because the agreement was unregistered, citing precedents. The appellant contended that the trial court erred in its interpretation, citing a Supreme Court decision. The respondent's attempt to challenge other trial court findings was unsuccessful.

Upon reconsideration, the High Court focused on the correctness of the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of the unregistered document. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the High Court overturned the trial court's opinion, stating that an unregistered document can be admitted as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, the High Court granted the relief of specific performance to the appellant.

Regarding the respondent's cross-objection on costs and refund of earnest money, the High Court found no need to address these issues further due to the reversal of the trial court's decision on specific performance. The High Court affirmed the trial court's findings on the quantum of costs and refund of earnest money, as they were based on cogent evidence. The High Court decreed the suit for specific performance, requiring the appellant to deposit the outstanding agreement amount with interest, and disposed of the cross-objection accordingly.

In conclusion, the High Court quashed the trial court's judgment and decree, decreeing the suit for specific performance in favor of the appellant. The High Court outlined the conditions for granting the relief sought by the appellant and directed the appellant to deposit the outstanding amount with interest. The cross-objection was also disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

---