In Dharmendra Singh & Anr. v. Fazlu Rehman, RFA (COMM) 134/2023 (decided 8 September 2026), a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain set aside a District Judge's order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The suit for specific performance had been thrown out because the agreement to sell was unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The High Court held that the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 permits an unregistered agreement to sell — even one accompanied by possession — to be used as the basis of a suit for specific performance, though the stamp deficiency had to be made good with penalty before the document could be admitted.
The dispute
The parties executed an agreement to sell a shop on 10 May 2019 for Rs. 12,00,000. The plaintiffs' case was that the full consideration was paid and possession delivered, with the defendant simultaneously inducted as a tenant. When rent payments stopped in December 2021, the plaintiffs sued for specific performance. The District Judge rejected the plaint at the threshold: the agreement, being unregistered and insufficiently stamped, could not — in that court's view — sustain the suit at all.
What the Division Bench held
The plaint could not be rejected. An unregistered agreement to sell involving part performance or possession can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and can be received in evidence for that purpose under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
Section 53-A protection is a different question. The Bench was explicit that while the document can ground the suit, it cannot be used to claim the protection of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which after Section 17(1-A) requires registration.
Stamp deficiency must be cured. The plaintiffs were directed to deposit deficient stamp duty of Rs. 59,950 together with a penalty of Rs. 5,99,500 within one month as the price of admission of the document in evidence.
In the Bench's words: "An unregistered agreement to sell involving part performance or possession can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and can be admitted in evidence, but it cannot be used to obtain protection available under Section 53-A."
Registration, stamping and admissibility — three separate gates
| Objection | Statute | Effect on the suit |
|---|---|---|
| Non-registration | Sections 17(1-A) and 49, Registration Act, 1908 | Document inadmissible to prove a completed transfer or Section 53-A protection, but admissible as evidence of the contract in a specific performance suit under the proviso to Section 49 |
| Insufficient stamping | Articles 23 and 23-A, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 | Document must be impounded; admissible on payment of deficiency plus penalty — does not bar the suit |
| Bar apparent on the plaint | Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC | Rejection only where the suit itself is barred by law on the face of the plaint — not merely because a document faces admissibility hurdles |
Why the decision matters
Agreements to sell in Delhi's property market are frequently executed on modest stamp paper and left unregistered, often with possession handed over against full payment. When disputes surface years later, defendants routinely argue that the suit itself is stillborn. This judgment separates the strands: registration and stamping affect what the document can prove and at what cost, but they do not shut the courthouse door on a specific performance claim. At the same time, the tenfold stamp penalty imposed here is a sobering illustration of the real price of executing conveyancing documents on deficient stamp paper.
Practical guidance
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a suit for specific performance be filed on an unregistered agreement to sell?
Yes. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permits an unregistered document to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that this holds even where possession was delivered under the agreement, though registration requirements under Section 17(1-A) bar the separate statutory protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
What is the effect of insufficient stamping on such an agreement?
Insufficient stamping goes to admissibility, not to the maintainability of the suit. The document can be impounded and admitted on payment of the deficient stamp duty together with the statutory penalty — in this case, the deficiency plus a penalty of ten times that amount.
What is Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and when can a plaint be rejected under it?
Order VII Rule 11(d) permits rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. It is a drastic power confined to cases where the bar is apparent on the face of the plaint; questions of admissibility of documents are not, by themselves, grounds to reject a plaint.
Does possession under an unregistered agreement give protection under Section 53-A TPA?
No. After the 2001 amendment inserting Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, a contract accompanied by delivery of possession must be registered for the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A to be invoked. An unregistered agreement can still ground a specific performance suit, but not a Section 53-A shield.