The law mandates that certain documents must be registered, yet even without registration, permits these documents to be admissible in evidence. Would this be construed to dispense with the requirement to execute the agreement, whether registered or otherwise?
Case Study: Raj Developers had constructed Savitri Sadan building at Bhayander on a plot of land jointly owned by eight members of the Thakkar family. The builder failed to form the society. The shop owners and flat purchasers then formed a society on their own without the builder’s assistance. It was registered as Savitri CHS in March 1994.
The society later attempted to get conveyance of the land and building. As the builder failed to execute conveyance, the society filed a complaint before the Thane District Forum against the developer and eight members of the Thakkar family who had owned the building plot.
The forum observed that there was neither any agreement in respect of transferring the title from the land owners to the builder, nor was there any registered development agreement authorizing the builder to construct the building and sell the flats. The forum observed that when the builder does not have clear title, he cannot pass on the title to the society. Hence the forum concluded that it could not order execution of the conveyance. So the complaint was dismissed.
The society appealed against this order. Its argument was that the Maharashtra Ownership
Flats Act specially provided for unregistered agreements to be accepted in evidence.