Case Name: Rajeswari & Ors. v. Shanmugam & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1329
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Date of Judgment: 19 November 2025
Acts/Sections Referred: Registration Act, 1908, Section 17(1)(e); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 47; Specific Relief Act, 1963
Case Type: Family Law / Property / Registration / Assignment of Decree / Specific Performance
1. Introduction
The case of Rajeswari & Ors. v. Shanmugam & Anr. concerns the fundamental question of whether a deed that assigns a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. The legal heirs of the original judgment-debtor challenged the execution of a sale deed in favour of the assignee of the decree, arguing that the assignment deed was invalid for want of registration and therefore unenforceable. The Supreme Court was required to determine the legal nature of a decree for specific performance and whether an instrument assigning such a decree creates, assigns, limits, or extinguishes any right, title, or interest in immovable property within the meaning of the Registration Act, 1908. The judgment settles a previously contested area of property law and prevents unnecessary procedural hurdles in the assignment of decrees for specific performance.
2. Summary of Facts
The Appellants are the legal heirs of the original defendant in a suit for specific performance. Their predecessor-in-interest had suffered an ex-parte decree for specific performance in 1993, directing him to execute a sale deed in respect of immovable property. The first Respondent, Shanmugam, claimed to be the assignee of this decree by virtue of a deed of assignment executed in 1995. In 2004, the Respondent filed an execution petition seeking to have the sale deed executed in his favour pursuant to the assigned decree. The Executing Court allowed the petition in 2008.
The Appellants thereafter filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to set aside the execution on the ground that the assignment deed was unenforceable as it had not been registered under the Registration Act, 1908. The Executing Court accepted this argument and dismissed the execution proceedings. The Respondent successfully challenged this order in a revision petition before the High Court, which held that the assignment deed did not require registration. The Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
3. Issues Before the Court
(i) Whether a deed assigning a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning immovable property is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908.
4. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:
The Appellants contended that a decree for specific performance, by directing the execution of a sale deed, effectively creates or declares a right in immovable property and that an assignment of such a decree therefore operates as an assignment of a right in immovable property. They argued that such an assignment fell within Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 and required compulsory registration, failing which it was inadmissible in evidence and unenforceable in execution proceedings.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondents:
The Respondents contended that a decree for specific performance is a judicial direction and does not itself create any interest in immovable property. Title to the property passes only upon the actual execution and registration of the sale deed, either voluntarily by the judgment-debtor or by the court in substitution. An assignment of the right to enforce the decree is therefore not an assignment of any interest in immovable property and does not require registration under the Registration Act, 1908.
5. Reasonings and Findings
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the assignment deed did not require registration. The Court conducted a careful analysis of the distinction between a decree for specific performance and a concluded transfer of immovable property. The Court held that a decree for specific performance does not by itself create, assign, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property. It is a judicial direction recognising a party’s right to have a contract for sale performed through the eventual execution of a sale deed.
The Court held that since the decree itself creates no immediate proprietary interest in the property, an instrument assigning such a decree does not fall within the ambit of Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908, which requires compulsory registration of instruments that create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property of a value of one hundred rupees and upwards. The right and title to the property pass to the assignee-decree-holder only upon the eventual execution and registration of the sale deed, not upon the assignment of the decree.
The Court overruled the contrary view taken in K. Bhaskaram v. Mohammad Moulana and approved the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in Amol v. Deorao, thereby providing clarity and uniformity on this question of law across the country. The Court observed that requiring registration of assignment deeds for specific performance decrees would create unnecessary procedural obstacles without serving the registration law’s underlying purpose of recording transactions that immediately affect property rights.
6. Judgment and Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the High Court’s finding. The judgment definitively settles that the assignment of a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property does not require compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. This provides much-needed clarity and removes an unnecessary procedural obstacle to the enforcement of decrees for specific performance, while correctly locating the registration requirement at the stage of the actual execution of the sale deed.
7. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is a decree for specific performance?
A decree for specific performance is a court order directing a party to a contract to perform his contractual obligations. In the context of sale of immovable property, it directs the seller to execute a sale deed in favour of the buyer. Such a decree is passed under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 when the court finds that monetary compensation would be an inadequate remedy for breach of the contract.
Q2. Does a decree for specific performance create an interest in immovable property?
No. A decree for specific performance is a judicial direction and does not by itself create, assign, or extinguish any interest in immovable property. Title and interest in the property pass to the decree-holder only upon the actual execution and registration of the sale deed, either by the judgment-debtor or by the court.
Q3. What is Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908?
Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates compulsory registration of non-testamentary instruments that create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest of a value of one hundred rupees or more in immovable property. An unregistered instrument falling within this provision is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to affect or establish any right in immovable property.
Q4. What is the assignment of a decree?
The assignment of a decree is the transfer by the decree-holder of the right to enforce the decree to another person. The assignee steps into the shoes of the original decree-holder and is entitled to execute the decree for his own benefit. Assignment of a decree is a recognised legal transaction and does not require the consent of the judgment-debtor.
Q5. Why is this judgment significant for property law practice?
This judgment removes a previously uncertain procedural requirement that had been applied inconsistently by different courts. By confirming that assignment deeds for specific performance decrees need not be registered, the judgment facilitates the efficient transfer and enforcement of such decrees and ensures that the registration requirement is applied proportionately, only at the stage when proprietary interests are actually transferred.
