An unregistered agreement to sell cannot create any right over any immovable property, and a trespasser has no right to seek injunction against the true owner.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed Original Suit No. 732 of 2008 (Amil Vs. Mohd. Umar and another) with averment that the owner of the disputed property is defendant no.-1 Mohd. Umar, who had orally agreed to sell this property to plaintiff and in this regard plaintiff had given Rs. two lacs in in response to which defendant no.-1 had executed a receipt dated 08.05.2007 and handed over to the plaintiff along with the possession of the disputed land. After that plaintiff is continuing in possession of disputed agricultural plot. The plaintiff was willing and ready to perform his part of said contract and pay remaining Rs. 20,000/- for execution of registered sale-deed. But defendant had delayed the matter without any reason and had not executed sale-deed. On 15.11.2008, defendant no.-1 visited the disputed plot and informed that he had sold the said property to defendant no.-2 Smt. Sahana Khatoon. They had asked the plaintiff to vacate the disputed land and threatened to interfere in his possession, therefore, on the basis of this cause of action the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction with relief that defendant be restrained from evicting him from the disputed land otherwise than in accordance with law; and they be directed not to transfer the disputed land and interfere in peaceful possession of plaintiff.

3. Defendants had filed written-statement in which they had that no agreement to sell was ever executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.-1 and alleged agreement to sell dated 08.05.2007 is forged. Defendant no.-1 was owner and bhumidhar of disputed land and plaintiff has no right over it. Defendant no.-1 had sold a portion of disputed land to defendant no.-2. Plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. After affording opportunity of hearing, the trial court had dismissed the suit of plaintiff by judgment dated 27.05.2013, against which Civil Appeal no. 64/2013 (Amil Vs. Mohd. Umar and another) was preferred by plaintiff, but this appeal was also dismissed by judgment dated 11.09.2015 of first appellate court. Aggrieved by these judgments of two courts below, present second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff.

5. It is settled legal position that no right can be accrued over any disputed property except by registered deed. The plaintiff's suit is based on alleged right accrued on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell. Such agreement to sell cannot create any right of plaintiff-appellant over any immovable property because it is unregistered. This fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant during arguments who contended that for this reason only the suit for specific purpose of contract had not been filed. He contended that the appellant's right has been created on the basis of receipt dated 08.05.2007 mentioned in plaint. But this contention is not acceptable because said alleged receipt being unregistered document cannot create any right over any immovable property.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is in permissive possession of disputed agricultural property, therefore he cannot be evicted from it otherwise than in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant. He also contended that although relief of restraining the defendants and respondents from transferring the disputed property may be declined, but since the appellant has entered into into possession of disputed property in a peaceful way and after permission of its owner defendant no.-1, therefore, his entering into possession in a peaceful and permissive way should be respected and at least he should not be evicted otherwise than the procedural establish of law. In this regard a perusal of two courts below reveal that none of the court had given finding about actual physical possession of appellant over the disputed property. In second appeal, disputed matter of actu