Plaintiff cannot obtain permanent injunction based on unregistered sale agreement when specific performance unavailable

SC reversed HC and appellate court judgments granting permanent injunction to plaintiff based on unregistered agreement to sell. Court held plaintiff cannot obtain indirect relief through permanent injunction when substantive relief of specific performance would be unavailable due to unregistered document. Despite clever drafting to avoid seeking specific performance, plaintiff cannot circumvent legal requirements through alternative pleadings. Trial court's dismissal of suit and allowance of defendant's counter-claim for possession was restored. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of decree for permanent injunction based on unregistered agreement to sell.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the validity of a decree for permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement to sell. The original Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction solely relying on an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996. The trial Court dismissed the suit, stating that the Plaintiff failed to prove the agreement and was in unauthorized possession. However, the first appellate Court reversed this decision, granting the permanent injunction and rejecting the Defendant's counter-claim.

The Appellant argued that an unregistered agreement is not admissible as evidence, and thus, the decrees were erroneous. The Plaintiff cleverly sought only permanent injunction, knowing specific performance would fail due to the unregistered agreement. The Court acknowledged that unregistered documents can be used for collateral purposes but emphasized that indirect relief cannot be granted when a substantive claim would fail. Consequently, the Court found the decrees unsustainable and restored the trial Court's decision.

The Court held that the Plaintiff could not obtain permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit while allowing the Defendant's counter-claim. The appellate Court's decrees were quashed, and the trial Court's judgment was reinstated. The judgment highlights the importance of registering agreements for enforceability and the limitations of seeking relief based on unregistered documents.

---