In Specific Performance Cases, Unregistered Agreement Can Be Read In Evidence, Reiterated MP HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that an unregistered sale agreement can be admitted in evidence in a suit for specific performance, provided it falls within the scope of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Dismissing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the court refused to interfere with a trial court order that had permitted exhibition of such an agreement during the plaintiff’s chief examination.

The order was passed by Justice Hirdesh on February 4, 2026, in a Miscellaneous Petition filed by Anupam Mittal and others challenging the order of the First District Judge, Sheopur, dated November 19, 2025.

The dispute arises from a Regular Civil Suit instituted by respondent Fariyad Ansari seeking specific performance of a sale agreement dated January 25, 2023, along with permanent injunction and recovery of money. According to the plaint, the defendants had agreed to sell agricultural land for a total consideration of Rs. 1.5 crore. An advance amount of Rs. 10 lakh was allegedly paid, but the sale deed was never executed.

In their written statement, the defendants denied the allegations and raised a specific objection to the admissibility of the unregistered agreement. Invoking Section 17(f) of the Registration Act, 1908, they argued that the agreement, being compulsorily registrable, could not be admitted in evidence. They further contended that the trial court erred in deciding this objection during the plaintiff’s chief examination instead of adjudicating it as a distinct preliminary issue

Appearing for the petitioners, Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan submitted that the impugned order was “illegal and contrary to law.” He argued that the admissibility objection ought to have been decided independently and that addressing it during evidence deprived the defendants of a fair opportunity to contest the issue. It was also urged that serious prejudice had been caused.

On the other hand, Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra, counsel for the respondent, defended the trial court’s approach. He argued that the foundation of the suit was the execution of the agreement and the defendants’ refusal to perform their part. The trial court, he submitted, was well within its discretion to consider the objection at the stage of evidence, particularly when the admissibility of documents can be determined during trial.

After hearing both sides and examining the record, the High court identified the core issue as the admissibility of the unregistered sale agreement. The court noted that although the defendants had invoked Section 17(f), the trial court had rightly relied upon the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The proviso permits an unregistered document to be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance, even if it cannot be used to establish title.

Significantly, the High court observed that the document had been duly impounded in accordance with law and that possession of the property had not been delivered under the agreement. This factual matrix, the court implied, removed the matter from the rigour of the main bar under Section 49.

In clear terms, the court held that “the trial Court did not commit any legal error or procedural irregularity in exhibiting the document” and that “there is no ground for interference, as the trial Court has correctly followed the legal principles”.

The Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition and declined to interfere. No order as to costs was passed.

Case Title: Anupam Mittal and Others v. Fariyad Ansari

Date of Order: February 4, 2026

Bench: Justice Hirdesh