The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a registered agreement to sell does not transfer title in immovable property, and that a buyer who does not seek specific performance cannot obtain a declaration or permanent injunction on the basis of such an agreement alone.
Justice Ashish Shroti of the Gwalior Bench allowed a second appeal, set aside concurrent decrees of the two courts below and dismissed the suit filed by the intending purchaser.
Background
The dispute concerned 0.158 hectare out of 0.549 hectare of land in Survey No. 1712, village Gohad, District Bhind. The plaintiff claimed that defendant no.1 agreed to sell him the land for ₹33,000, of which ₹5,200 was paid as advance, and that possession was also given to him. A registered agreement dated 27.12.1989 recorded that the sale deed would be executed once defendant no.1’s name was mutated in the revenue records.
Alleging that defendant no.1 was negotiating a sale with others, the plaintiff filed a suit on 13.07.1990. He sought a declaration that defendant no.1 was not entitled to sell the land to anyone else and a permanent injunction restraining any transfer. After defendant no.1 and his brothers sold the land to defendant no.4 by sale deed dated 10.10.1991, the plaintiff amended the plaint to challenge that sale deed as well.
The Civil Judge Class-I, Gohad, decreed the suit on 18.01.2001, and the Additional District Judge, Gohad, affirmed it on 28.09.2001. Both courts held that the plaintiff acquired title and possession under the registered agreement, and that the later sale deed was null and void. Defendant no.4, the purchaser, filed the second appeal, which is now being pursued through his legal representatives.
Arguments
Advocate Avadhesh Parashar, appearing for the appellants, argued that the plaintiff claimed ownership on the agreement to sell alone, which does not convey any title. He submitted that no decree could have been passed without a claim for specific performance. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and on the High Court’s rulings in Prem Bai v. Smt. Neelam and Nehal Shah v. Jameet Singh Kachhwahe.
Government Advocate Rajendra Jain appeared for the State. No one appeared for the plaintiff despite service of notice.
Court’s Findings on Agreement to Sell and Title
The Court noted that the plaintiff asserted title solely on the basis of the registered agreement. It observed, “Thus, it is evident that the parties only agreed to sell the suit land, but title of the land was not conveyed in favour of the plaintiff.”
The Court relied on Suraj Lamp, Prem Bai, Nehal Shah and the Supreme Court’s decision in RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar. It quoted the Supreme Court’s observation in Suraj Lamp that “an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance.”
The Court found that the plaintiff was required to seek specific performance of the agreement dated 27.12.1989 but had not done so. It held, “Thus, in absence of any relief for specific performance of agreement to sell, there is no chance of plaintiff’s acquiring title over the suit property.” It added that “without having title over the property, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of permanent injunction also.”
The Court therefore held that the courts below erred in law in granting the declaration and injunction on the basis of the agreement.
Court Fee Question
On the second substantial question, the Court held that the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed dated 10.10.1991. He was therefore not required to pay ad valorem court fee to seek a declaration that it was null and void. The Court relied on Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh. It said this answer was inconsequential in view of its finding on the first question.
Outcome
The High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of both courts below and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff was directed to bear the cost of the appeal.
Case Title: Kiledar Singh (Deceased) Through LRs Kalyan Singh and Others v. Anil Kumar and Others
Case No.: Second Appeal No. 438 of 2001
Bench: Justice Ashish Shroti
Date: 23.10.2026
