Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) The judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in Ram Kishan and another vs. Bijender Mann alias Vijender Mann and others, 2013(1) PLR 195 is sub silentio as the Bench has failed to notice that a mere agreement to sell does not transfer any right or interest in the immovable property.

(3) In fact, the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, in essence, becomes an attempt to protect physical possession and therefore, on the basis of an un-registered agreement to sell, no suit could be filed.

With regard to contention No.3, it may be noted that the Parliament in its wisdom has laid down that the agreement to sell coupled with the delivery of possession shall be required to be registered only if it is to be used for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The aforesaid provision has already been reproduced above. However, since, there is no corresponding amendment in Section 54 of the 7 of 9 Transfer of Property Act, 1882, therefore, even if in the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell the plaintiff prays for protection of his physical possession, the same would not amount to a suit for protecting the physical possession only. If ultimately such suit is dismissed by the Court while refusing to grant the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell then, of course, the plaintiff may not be entitled to an injunction on the basis of possessory right only. However, till such time, when the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell is pending, the plaintiff is entitled to protect his physical possession on the basis of an un-registered agreement to sell.