Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Nagappa Vs. Devu

Nagappa vs Devu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 16, 1890
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776694

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Registration Act - Act III of 1877, Sections 17(d), 49--Specific Relief Act--Act I of 1877, Section 4(c)--Admissibility of unregistered sale-deed--Suit for specific performance of contract to sell land. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nagappa

Respondent

Devu

Legal References

Cases Referred
and Nynakka Routhen v. Vavana Mahomed Naina Routhen
Reported In
(1891)ILR14Mad55

Excerpt

registration act - act iii of 1877, sections 17(d), 49--specific relief act--act i of 1877, section 4(c)--admissibility of unregistered sale-deed--suit for specific performance of contract to sell land. - 1. adakkalam v. theethan i.l.r., 12 mad., 505, is authority for holding that a document which, for want of registration is not admissible in evidence as creating an interest in land, is admissible for the purpose of obtaining specific performance of the contract, which is in effect the object of the present suit; and nynakka routhen v. vavana mahomed naina routhen 5 m.h.c.r. 123 is authority for the admission of secondary evidence in case of a document being allowed to remain unregistered through no fault of the plaintiff. in either case, therefore, the subordinate judge's decision is wrong.2. the munsif has found that there was an agreement for sale.3. the lower appellate court having dismissed the suit on a preliminary point without going into the merits of the case, we set aside the decree and remand the case for replacement on the tile and disposal on merits. the costs of this appeal will be paid by the respondent. the costs hitherto incurred will be provided for in the revised decree.

Full Judgment

1. Adakkalam v. Theethan I.L.R., 12 Mad., 505, is authority for holding that a document which, for want of registration is not admissible in evidence as creating an interest in land, is admissible for the purpose of obtaining specific performance of the contract, which is in effect the object of the present suit; and Nynakka Routhen v. Vavana Mahomed Naina Routhen 5 M.H.C.R. 123 is authority for the admission of secondary evidence in case of a document being allowed to remain unregistered through no fault of the plaintiff. In either case, therefore, the Subordinate Judge's decision is wrong.

2. The Munsif has found that there was an agreement for sale.

3. The Lower Appellate Court having dismissed the suit on a preliminary point without going into the merits of the case, we set aside the decree and remand the case for replacement on the tile and disposal on merits. The costs of this appeal will be paid by the respondent. The costs hitherto incurred will be provided for in the revised decree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial