Unregistered sale agreement claims face rejection when long delay and no documentary proof defeat admission under limitation principles.

A claim based on an unregistered 1995 agreement for sale was rejected as a stale demand because no sale deed was registered and no contemporaneous material showed payment of consideration or pursuit of rights for over 25 years. The absence of legal notice, action, or documentary proof weighed against admission of the claim, and limitation principles under insolvency law supported the objection that the claim was hopelessly delayed. The claim was therefore treated as time-barred, unsupported by evidence, and not fit for admission.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant's claim arising from an unregistered agreement for sale was liable to be admitted and whether the delay in submitting the claim could be condoned despite the plea of limitation and absence of documentary proof.

Analysis: The claim was founded on an agreement of sale of 1995 under which construction was to be completed within 24 months, yet no sale deed was registered and no legal action, notice, or contemporaneous documentary material was produced to show payment of consideration or pursuit of rights for over 25 years. The claim was therefore examined as a stale demand, and the applicability of limitation principles under insolvency law supported the objection that the claim was hopelessly delayed. The lack of proof of payment and the unexplained inaction for a prolonged period also weighed against acceptance of the claim.

Conclusion: The claim was held to be time-barred, unsupported by documentary evidence, and not fit for admission; the rejection of the claim was upheld against the applicant.

---