Whether assignment deed requires registration. Held that an assignment deed of a decree for specific performance is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(e) where the decree itself does not purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property; a decree for specific performance is a preliminary decree which recognises the right to obtain execution but does not transfer title. (Paras 16–31, 25–30.)

Rajeswari & Ors. v. Shanmugam & Anr.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.13835 OF 2025
(@ SLP (C) No.3532 of 2018)
Supreme Court of India — Judgment dated: 19th November, 2025
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Head Notes

1. Registration — s.17(1)(e), Registration Act, 1908 — Assignment of decree for specific performance — Whether assignment deed requires registration. Held that an assignment deed of a decree for specific performance is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(e) where the decree itself does not purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property; a decree for specific performance is a preliminary decree which recognises the right to obtain execution but does not transfer title. (Paras 16–31, 25–30.)

2. Nature of decree for specific performance — Decree does not itself vest title. A decree for specific performance recognises contractual obligations and empowers execution, but title and interest in immovable property pass only on execution and registration of the sale-deed. (Paras 16–24.)

3. Assignability & execution — Order XXI Rule 16 CPC. Rights under a decree (i.e., right to proceed in execution) are assignable; Order XXI Rule 16 permits execution by transferee, subject to proviso (notice to transferor and judgment-debtor and hearing of objections). Non-compliance with the proviso can vitiate execution proceedings. (Para 28.)

4. Precedent overruled to extent inconsistent. The decision in K. Bhaskaram (AIR 2005 AP 524), insofar as it treats assignment of a decree for specific performance as necessarily registrable under s.17(1)(e), is not correct law. (Paras 33–34.)

Facts of the Case

1. A decree for specific performance was passed on 13.09.1993 in O.S. No.100/1989 by the First Additional Sub Court, Erode, in favour of the decree-holder (predecessor of the appellants). The decree ordered execution of the sale-deed in favour of the decree-holder or permitted execution through court. (Para 3, 14.)

2. An assignment deed (Ex.B1) dated 17.07.1995 effected by the decree-holder purported to assign rights under that decree (for consideration of Rs.20,000) in favour of Shanmugam (respondent No.1). (Paras 3, 15.)

3. The assignee (respondent No.1) filed E.P. No.150/2004 in O.S. No.100/1989 seeking execution and direction to execute the sale-deed and deliver possession. The Executing Court on 13.03.2008 ordered execution of the sale-deed in favour of the assignee. (Paras 4–5.)

4. On 31.10.2009 the legal heirs of the judgment-debtor (appellants herein) filed E.A. No.180/2009 under Section 47 CPC to set aside execution, contending inter alia that the assignment deed was unregistered and therefore unenforceable; the Executing Court (by order dated 08.04.2010) allowed the application and held the assignment invalid for want of registration, relying on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (K. Bhaskaram). (Paras 6–6, 18–19.)

5. The assignee filed revision before the High Court which allowed the revision and held the assignment deed need not be registered because the decree did not create any right, title or interest in immovable property itself. The present appeal challenges that outcome. (Para 7.)

Findings of the Court (Reasoning)

1. Nature of specific performance decree: The Court analysed authorities (including Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Suraj Lamp) and statutory provisions (Transfer of Property Act s.54; Specific Relief Act s.15, s.28) to reaffirm that a decree for specific performance is essentially a preliminary decree: it declares and enforces the contractual obligation but does not itself transfer ownership or create title/interest in the immovable property. Title passes only on execution of a registered sale-deed, either by the vendor or through court process. (Paras 16–24.)

2. Statutory text of s.17(1)(e): Section 17(1)(e) makes registration compulsory for non-testamentary instruments transferring/assigning any decree or order where the decree/order itself purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property of value ₹100 and upwards. The Court held that the decisive enquiry is whether the decree itself purports or operates to create/assign such right/title/interest. (Paras 25–26.)

3. Application to present facts: Since the decree for specific performance in this case does not itself create or vest title/interest in the immovable property in favour of the decree-holder (it only entitles the decree-holder to seek execution), Section 17(1)(e) is not attracted and registration of the assignment deed was not required. (Paras 26, 30.)

4. Assignability and procedure for execution: The Court noted rights under a decree may be assigned; Order XXI Rule 16 permits execution by transferee, subject to the proviso requiring notice to transferor and judgment-debtor and hearing of objections. The Court observed there was no argument of non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 16’s proviso before it in this appeal. (Paras 28–31.)

5. On contrary High Court decision (K. Bhaskaram): The Court held that the K. Bhaskaram decision had proceeded on an admission that registration was required and also dealt with non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 16; it does not correctly lay down the law in the broader sense and cannot be accepted as binding. (Para 33.)

6. Policy/revenue argument rejected: The Court rejected the submission that permitting assignment without registration will enable parties to avoid registration charges and cause revenue loss; since title does not pass until execution & registration of sale-deed, the fear is exaggerated. (Para 31–32.)

Final Decision / Disposition

1. The appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s judgment setting aside the Executing Court’s order that had denied execution on the ground that the assignment deed was unregistered. (Para 34–35.)

2. Reason: Assignment of the decree for specific performance in the facts of the case did not require registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act because the decree itself did not purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property — title/interest passes only upon execution and registration of the sale-deed. (Paras 26–31, 33–34.)

3. No order as to costs. (Para 35.)