Unregistered land agreement created an interest in immovable property, but a collateral leveling covenant remained enforceable.
An unregistered agreement granting extensive rights to excavate land was treated as creating an interest in immovable property, so it fell within the registration law and could not be relied on to prove the transaction affecting title. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was held inapplicable because it does not operate retrospectively to transfers made before 1 April 1930. By contrast, the covenant to level the land was a collateral personal obligation that did not itself create or extinguish any interest in the property, so it remained admissible and enforceable despite non-registration. The appeal failed, though the question of damages was remanded for further enquiry.
Issues: (i) Whether the unregistered agreement dated 4 August 1927 created an interest in immovable property so as to attract the bar under the registration law and the inapplicability of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act; (ii) Whether the covenant to level the land was a collateral personal covenant admissible in evidence notwithstanding non-registration.
Issue (i): Whether the unregistered agreement dated 4 August 1927 created an interest in immovable property so as to attract the bar under the registration law and the inapplicability of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Analysis: The agreement conferred on the defendants more than a mere licence, since it permitted excavation of earth and sand to substantial depths and contemplated vacation of the land on a fixed date. On its true construction, it was an agreement for the transfer of an interest in immovable property and not a sale of chattels. As the document was unregistered, it could not be relied upon to prove the transaction affecting the property. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was held inapplicable because it was not intended to operate retrospectively on transfers made before 1 April 1930.
Conclusion: The agreement was within the mischief of the registration law, and section 53-A did not assist the plaintiff.
Issue (ii): Whether the covenant to level the land was a collateral personal covenant admissible in evidence notwithstanding non-registration.
Analysis: The covenant to level the land imposed a personal obligation to do something to the land, but it did not itself create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property. An unregistered document remains admissible to prove a collateral covenant that does not itself require registration. The covenant was treated as collateral to the main arrangement and not inseparable from the transfer of interest.
Conclusion: The covenant was admissible and enforceable as a collateral personal covenant.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, but the question of damages was sent back for further enquiry, so the dispute was not completely concluded at the appellate stage.
Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered instrument creating an interest in immovable property cannot be enforced to that extent under the registration law, section 53-A does not operate retrospectively to earlier transfers, and a separate collateral covenant not affecting title or interest in the property may still be proved and enforced.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
