An unregistered agreement to sell cannot serve as a basis for injunctive relief against a true owner of property, reflecting the necessity of registration under relevant laws.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 C.P.C. against the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.10.2025 passed by J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (S.D.), Saharanpur in O.S. No.108 of 2025 (Old Original Suit No.1330 of 2024) (Smt. Zaibunisha vs. Sanjeev Kumar) whereby the plaintiff's suit for the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering in her peaceful possession and encroachment of the disputed property and for restraining the defendant from alienating or transferring it, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that it was agreed upon between the plaintiff and defendant by agreement dated 16.01.2020 that the disputed property would be sold for a consideration of Rs.65,00,000/- to the plaintiff and out of that amount the plaintiff also paid Rs.5,00,000/- in cash towards earnest money to the defendant. It was also agreed that the defendant would execute the sale deed till 15.09.2022 but subsequently the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was further submitted that the defendant belongs to scheduled caste, as such, it was incumbent for the defendant to obtain permission from the competent authority for selling the disputed land and thereafter, the defendant was supposed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but the defendant failed to do so. It was further submitted that the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to fulfill the terms of the contract but since the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, as such, in order to protect her possession of the disputed property, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for the relief of permanent injunction, which has been erroneously rejected by the trial court on the ground that the alleged agreement on the basis of which the plaintiff was asserting her rights in the disputed property was unregistered and unstamped, therefore, on its basis, the plaintiff cannot claim any right and interest in the disputed property. Learned counsel further submitted that the above finding of the trial court is perverse because even if the alleged agreement was unregistered even then, it was admissible for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 but this fact has not been considered by the trial court. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Balram Singh vs Kelo Devi (2024) 12 SCC 723, wherin the plaintiffs sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing her possession in the suit property in Uttar Pradesh on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell, held as under:-

"6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original plaintiff instituted a suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction only, which was claimed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 23-3-1996. However, it is required to be noted that the agreement to sell dated 23-3- 1996 was an unregistered document/agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper. Therefore, as such, such an unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence.

7. Having been conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simpliciter fo