Blitz Bureau
THE Supreme Court recently reiterated that in the absence of a suit for specific performance of a contract, an agreement to sell cannot be relied upon for claiming ownership or title over the property. “In the absence of a suit for specific performance, the agreement to sell cannot be relied upon to claim ownership or to assert any transferable interest in the property.”, the court observed.
The Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard the case where the respondent No.1, in the absence of a suit for specific performance of the contract, sought enforcement of an agreement to sell to claim transfer benefits. Briefly put, the appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration of title, possession, and injunction over the suit property, arguing that the respondent No.1 doesn’t hold a good title because an agreement to sell and the Power of Attorney (“PoA”) executed in respondent No.1’s favour was revoked.
Despite revocation, the respondent No.1 executed sale deeds (2022) in his favour and mutated the property in revenue records. Challenging this action, the appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration of title, possession, and injunction over the suit property.
Being aggrieved by the High Court’s decision to reject his suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan held that to claim transfer benefits under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), a suit for specific performance of the contract must be filed, as merely relying on an agreement to sell is insufficient. The court clarified that title and ownership of immovable property can only be conveyed by a registered deed of sale.
