All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   The question before the apex court for consi... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?
  • a)
    Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.
  • b)
    Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.
  • c)
    Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.
  • d)
    All the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
The question before the apex court for consideration was “whether an ...
As one case law doesn't allow an unregistered agreement to sell to be admissible whereas the other allows it to be admissible and that is why sanctions a suit of specific performance to be filed on that agreement.
View all questions of this test
< 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

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

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

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

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.

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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. Which of the following is true with respect to the judgements as mentioned in the paragraph above?a)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed.b)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state that an agreement to sell has to be registered for a suit of specific performance to be filed and to be rendered as admissible in the court.c)Both the cases Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh and Birham Pal & Ors. V. Niranjan Singh & Ors state different ratios as the former renders an unregistered agreement to sell inadmissible whereas the latter gives an option of suit of specific performance to be filed on an unregistered deed of sale.d)All the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup