Specific performance and unregistered release deed: underlying contract proved, registration failure not attributed to plaintiff.

An unregistered release deed could be relied on to prove the underlying contract under the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, but it could not itself be treated as a fresh agreement to execute the same transfer again. The original agreement was capable of oral modification, and the defendant remained bound to complete registration of the substituted conveyance because the failure to register was not attributable to the plaintiff. On the facts, the plaintiff was not guilty of laches or negligence, the acknowledgment in the unregistered deed supported limitation, and the broader covenant to execute further deeds justified a conveyance to perfect title. Specific performance was therefore granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance directing the defendant to execute and register a proper conveyance of the defendant's undivided share in the property, having regard to the original agreement, the subsequent oral modification to execute a release deed, the execution of an unregistered release deed, and the effect of non-registration on the parties' rights.

Analysis: The original agreement gave the plaintiff a right to call upon the defendant to execute a conveyance after payment of the price, and the obligation to discharge the mortgage and promissory note was held to be independent of that right. The agreement was validly modified by a subsequent oral arrangement substituting a release deed for a conveyance, since the contract was not one required by law to be in writing or registered. The defendant executed the release deed, but the failure to register it was not attributable to the plaintiff: the defendant had undertaken the duty to have the document registered and had not shown that he called upon the plaintiff to present it or return it for registration. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act was held to permit an unregistered document to be received as evidence of a contract, but not to convert an unregistered deed into a fresh agreement to execute the same document again. On the facts, the plaintiff was not guilty of laches or negligence, and the acknowledgment contained in the unregistered release deed could be relied upon to save limitation and support enforcement of the subsisting obligation. The clause promising to execute all deeds and writings for better securing the estate was construed broadly enough to justify a conveyance necessary to perfect the plaintiff's title.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to a decree directing the defendant to execute a proper conveyance of the defendant's undivided 1/6th share in the estate.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the dismissal of the suit was set aside, and specific performance was granted in the form of execution of a proper conveyance at the plaintiff's cost.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered instrument may be used to prove the underlying contract, but it cannot be treated as a substitute agreement to execute the same transfer again; however, where the defendant remained bound to complete registration and the plaintiff was not responsible for non-registration, specific performance of the subsisting obligation may be enforced.

---