The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal and Ors. V. Niranjan Singh and Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The question before the apex court for consi...

Join the Discussion on the App

The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.

In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.

It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.

Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.

Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?

a)
An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.
b)
An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.
c)
An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.
d)
Both (A) and (B)

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 15

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an ...

As per the passage, an unregistered agreement to sell can be used both as evidence for part performance and for suit to file for specific performance.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1

View answer

The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1

View answer

The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1

View answer

The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1

View answer

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jack Ryan, who runs his business in the US, got his trademark registered there. Mr. Osama, who runs his business in India, started using a trademark same as that of Mr. Jack Ryan. Now, Mr. Jack Ryan wants to pursue infringement action. Decide.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an unregistered agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession or executed in favor of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement that conceive of part performance, of an agreement to sell as conceived by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882, can be received in evidence as proof of the agreement and as to whether a suit for specific performance would lie on the basis of such an unregistered agreement to sell.”The object of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 gives a right to the defendant to protect his possession against the transferor. It is equally available against a person who claims under him such as heirs, assigns and legal representative. This section is ordinarily to be used as a defense and not as a weapon of attack.In the case of Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh, the Hon'ble court held that agreement to sell, acquired by delivery of possession is inadmissible in evidence if it is not registered but in the matter of Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors., the Court held that on the basis of section 49 of the Registration Act, such an agreement can form the basis of a suit for specific performance.It has been judicially held that section 17(1A) merely declares that such an unregistered contract shall not be pressed into service for the purpose of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 17(1A) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, does not, whether in specific terms or by necessary intent, prohibit the filing of a suit for specific performance based upon an unregistered agreement to sell, that records delivery of possession or is executed in favour of a person to whom possession is delivered and the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 put paid to any argument to the contrary.Further, it is legally expounded that a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimizes such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.Q. What will be the correct inference among the following which can be drawn with respect to the paragraph above?a)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used as an evidence to prove part performance of the agreement.b)An unregistered agreement to Sell can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.c)An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as an evidence but can be used to file for a suit for specific performance.d)Both (A) and (B)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam