Registration Act | Presence Of Buyer & Seller Not Mandatory For Registration Of Sale Deed In Uttar Pradesh : Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the presence of the buyer or the seller is not mandatory at the time of execution and registration of a sale deed in Uttar Pradesh, as Section 32A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in the State, is different from the provision contained in the Central Act.Section 32A of the Central Act requires every person presenting a document for...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the presence of the buyer or the seller is not mandatory at the time of execution and registration of a sale deed in Uttar Pradesh, as Section 32A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in the State, is different from the provision contained in the Central Act.
Section 32A of the Central Act requires every person presenting a document for registration to affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to it, and where the document relates to transfer of ownership of immovable property, the photograph and fingerprints of each buyer and seller must also be affixed. Section 32A, as prevailing in Uttar Pradesh, instead requires every document presented for registration to be accompanied by prescribed true copies.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. vs. S.P. Velayutham, wherein it was held that the provisions of the Registration Act are to be interpreted keeping in view the State amendments introduced in it, Justice Sandeep Jain held,
“It is apparent that there is a vast difference between Section 32 A of the Registration Act as prevailing in the State of Uttar Pradesh and as prevalent in the Central Act. Under the Central Act, at the time of presentation of sale deed for registration, the presence of both the buyer and seller is mandatory for affixing their photograph and finger print on it, but in the Act prevailing in the State, it is not mandatory.”
Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. had entered into a registered agreement to sell dated 22.10.2012 with Dharam Prakash Nangia for the purchase of his residential house at Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, for Rs. 5.25 crores, of which Rs. 2 crores was paid as earnest money through cheques. Under the agreement, Dharam Prakash Nangia was to get the leasehold property converted to freehold at his expense by December 2014 and inform the hospital in writing, after which the sale deed was to be executed on payment of the balance Rs. 3.25 crores. On his demand, a further Rs. 41 lakhs was paid by the hospital towards freehold expenses.
Dharam Prakash Nangia applied to the Kanpur Development Authority for freehold conversion only on 21.8.2014, but he died on 4.7.2015 without the permission being granted. His daughters gave a legal notice to the hospital for cancellation of the agreement and refund of the earnest money. The hospital, in turn, issued notices. Three dates were fixed before the sub-registrar for execution of the sale deed, but the daughters did not appear on any of them. The suit for specific performance filed by the hospital was decreed by the Trial Court on 21.3.2025, directing it to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 2.84 crores.
Aggrieved, the daughters filed a first appeal under Section 96 CPC.
It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the hospital had failed to prove its continuous readiness and willingness as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was further pleaded that a cheque of Rs. 38 lakhs issued towards earnest money was dishonoured, proving the hospital's financial incapacity, and that the hospital had fraudulently fabricated a notarised time-extension agreement dated 21.12.2014, disentitling it from the equitable relief under Section 16(b).
Lastly, it was argued that the absence of the hospital's authorised representative before the sub-registrar showed that they were not ready and unwilling to execute the sale deed.
The Court held that conversion of the property to freehold was a condition precedent for execution of the sale deed, which Dharam Prakash Nangia never fulfilled in his lifetime, and neither he nor his daughters ever informed the hospital in writing that the permission had been obtained. On the contrary, the hospital had replied to the cancellation notice, repeatedly called upon the daughters to appear before the sub-registrar and remained present there with cheques and a draft sale deed.
“From the above evidence on record it is evident that the plaintiff was always willing to get the sale deed executed in its favour by paying the balance sale consideration, but Dharam Prakash Nangia till his death on 4.7.2015 and after his death, his daughter's, being his legal heirs, neither obtained the permission from the KDA for getting the property converted into free hold nor intimated in writing to the plaintiff, that they have obtained such permission and now the plaintiff should pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in its favour.”
From the bank statements and balance sheets on record, the Court found that the balance consideration had been deposited by the hospital with the Trial Court on 29.5.2025.
Rejecting the plea of fraud, the Court observed that the Trial Court had only found the time-extension document not proved, and had not held that it was fabricated by the hospital. It noted that the document was advantageous only to Dharam Prakash Nangia, who was to obtain the freehold permission, and no advantage was derived by the hospital from it.
“Hence, merely because the plaintiff failed to prove the above document, it cannot be inferred that the plaintiff has fraudulently fabricated that document in order to extend the period of limitation.”
Further, the Court relied on Aloka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi and Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill, wherein the Supreme Court held that an agreement of sale signed only by the vendor is valid and enforceable by the purchaser, and that the signature of the vendee is not mandatory in a sale deed.
The Court held that the last date fixed for execution of the sale deed on which the daughters failed to appear would be treated as the date fixed for performance under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the suit filed in January 2017 was not belated, Further, the Court observed that the director of the hospital and its representative had remained present before the sub-registrar on the dates fixed, and their presence had been proved from documentary evidence.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with costs and the decree of specific performance was affirmed.
Case Title: Mimansa Nangia And 2 Others v. Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365