Registration Act, 1908
Section 49: Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered
No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),] to be registered shall—
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) [,*** or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 49
-
Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant u/Or.VII, r.11, CPC, 1908.
-
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
Parties entered into an agreement to sell for sale of a property. Defendant no.1 sent various notices to plaintiffs to execute the sale deed. However, plaintiffs did not execute the sale deed. Thereafter, defendants…
-
N N Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) 7
The issue at hand arose in the context of three statutes; the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Stamp Act imposes duty on “instruments”.…
-
M/S Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit
To what extent the Court can take cognizance of a clause, relating to purpose for which a lease is granted, contained in an unregistered deed of lease for immovable property stipulating its duration for a period of five…
- M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/s
- S. Kuldeep Singh & Anr v. S. Prithpal Singh
- Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese Rep by Its Procurator Devssia’S Son Rev. Father Joseph Kappil
- M/S. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Others
- Firm Rajasthan Udyog & Ors. v. Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd.
- Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd.
- Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad and Ors.
- Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Balbir Singh Maini
- Yellapu Uma Maheswari &Anr. v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Ors.
- Ramesh Kumar & Anr. v. Furu Ram & Anr. Etc.
- M/S. Sms Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.
- Hafeeza Bibi & Ors. v. Shaikh Farid (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors
- S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram and Ors.
- Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra
- M/S. K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Development Consultant Ltd.
- Anthony v. Kc Ittoop and Sons and Ors.
- Vjjayabal and Ors. v. Shrlram Tukaram and Ors.
- Satish Kumar v. Zarif Ahmed and Ors.