A prospective purchaser in lawful possession pursuant to a registered agreement to sell, having performed their contractual obligations, acquires possessory title protected by law. Temporary injunction is the appropriate remedy to prevent dispossession during suit pendency when prima facie possession and balance of convenience are established in favor of the claimant.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and Sri A.K. Mehrotra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Patel and Sri Srijan Mehrotra, learned counsel for defendants/respondents.

2. The present First Appeal from Order has been preferred against the impugned order dated 5.9.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar in Civil Suit No. 1183 of 2023 ( Satya Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fundan and others ), whereby the application of the plaintiff/appellant bearing application No. 6C-2 has been rejected and objection (34-C-2) filed by defendants/respondents has been disposed of.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 02.06.2023 in the case of Ghanshyam Vs. Yogendra Rathi in Civil Appeal No.7527/7528 of 2012 wherein the identical issue came that the plaintiff in whose favour an agreement to sale has been executed and he has fulfilled his part of the consideration amount would not be having any right or title to the said dispute, the Supreme Court on the contrary has observed that "Legally an agreement to sell may not be regarded as a transaction of sale or a document transferring the proprietary rights in an immovable property, but the prospective purchaser having performed his part of the contract and lawfully in possession acquires possessory title which is liable to be protected in view of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The said possessory rights of the prospective purchaser cannot be invaded by the transferor or any person claiming under him", as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has further submitted that learned trial court has not considered that in terms of Section 53-A of the Act of 1988, the transferee, who happen to be the Appellant /Plaintiff / company completed his part of the contract and paid total amount of consideration i.e Rs Rs.15,21,37,274/-, the transferor/defendants /respondents or any person claiming under him is debarred from enforcing against the transferee /plaintiff / appellant and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property which was subject matter of agreement to sale of which the transferee / plaintiff / appellant has taken and continued in possession since 02.05.2014. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has not considered that the appellant / plaintiff has got possession over the entire property measuring an area of 34600 Sq.M. out of Khasra Nos.795 and 793, which was in sole ownership of Maharchand, Fundan, Lekhraj, Mahendra and Dayachand along the execution of agreement to Sale dated 02.05.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has further submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the fact that as per the judgment of Ghanshyam Vs. Yogendra Rathi (supra), the possessory right of the perspective purchaser, who happens to be the plaintiff/appellant herein cannot be invaded by a transferer or any person claiming under him. Learned Senior Counsel appe