Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Sarthak Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Through Authorised Signatory Balram Mathur – Petitioner
Versus
Akila Bi Through Power of Attorney Mohabbat And Others – Respondents
MISC. Appeal No. 7145 of 2025
Decided On : 28-11-2025
¼1½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 & /kkjk 5 rFkk 54 & LFkkoj laifÙk dk fof/kekU; foØ; & vko';d la?kVd & ,d thfor O;fä }kjk vU; thfor O;fä dks laifÙk dk gLrkarj.k] og gLrkarj.k dher ds fofue; esa gksuk gksrk gS rFkk gLrkarj.k jftLVªh—r fy[kr }kjk gksuk gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 17½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 39 fu- 1 ,oa 2 & laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 & /kkjk 5 rFkk 54 & okfnuh@çR;fFkZuh Øekad 1 dk laiw.kZ ekeyk vjftLVªh—r djkj ij vk/kkfjr & djkj esa fu"iknu ds rhu fHkUu fnukad & fy[kr dh çkekf.kdrk ds ckjs esa lansg mRiUu gksrk gS & vjftLVªh—r foØ; djkj ls okfnuh dks fof/kekU; gd çnÙk ugha gksxk & ;g gLrkarj.k dk foys[k gh ugha çFke–"V;k ekeys dk vfLrRo ugha & okfnuh ds foØ; djkj dh rqyuk vihykFkhZ çfroknh Øekad 5 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; foys[k ls djus ij] foØ; foys[k jftLVªh—r nLrkost gksus vkSj foØ; djkj vjftLVªh—r nLrkost gksus ds dkj.k] foØ; foys[k foØ; djkj ij Hkkjh iM+sxk & bl dkj.ko'k Hkh] okfnuh çR;fFkZuh Øekad 1 ds i{k esa dksbZ çFke–"V;k ekeyk ugha & dksbZ çFke–"V;k ekeyk ugha blfy, lqfo/kk ds larqyu rFkk viwj.kh; gkfu ds ijh{k.kksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha & okfnuh çR;fFkZuh Øekad 1 dks vLFkk;h O;kns'k çnku djus dk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vkns'k vikLrA flfoy vihy Øekad 6377 lu~ 2012 rFkk ¼2015½ 5 ,llhlh 588 vuqlfjrA 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 753 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12] 20 ls 23] 27 ,oa 28½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 39 fu- 1 ,oa 2 rFkk vk- 7 fu- 11 & vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 ds v/khu vkosnu dh [kkfjth & vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 ,oa 2 ds v/khu ijorhZ vkosnu ij çHkko & vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 ds v/khu vkosnu rFkk vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 ,oa 2 ds v/khu vkosnu ds fopkjkFkZ ekunaM iw.kZr% fHkUu gSa & vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 ds v/khu vkosnu ij fopkj vfrfu;efu"Brk ls okni= ds çdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk gksrk gS & vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 ,oa 2 ds vèkhu vkosnu esa okni= ds çdFkuksa ls ijs lkexzh ij fopkj djus dk c`gÙkj foLrkj gksrk gS & vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 ds v/khu vkosnu dh [kkfjth dk vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 ,oa 2 ds v/khu ijorhZ vkosnu ij dksbZ çHkko ugha iM+rkA ¼iSjk 25½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 39 fu- 1 ,oa 2 lqfo/kk dk larqyu rFkk viwj.kh; gkfu & çFke–"V;k ekeys ds vHkko esa U;k;ky; }kjk lqfoèkk ds larqyu rFkk viwj.kh; gkfu ij fopkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 27½
(1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Ss. 5 and 54 -- valid sale of immovable property -- necessary ingredients -- conveyance of property by one living person to another, that conveyance must be in exchange for price, and conveyance must be by registered instrument. [Para 17]
(2) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Ss. 5 and 54 -- entire case of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 based on unregistered agreement -- three different dates of execution in agreement -- raises serious doubts about genuineness of instrument -- unregistered agreement to sell would not confer valid title on plaintiff -- it is not a deed of conveyance at all -- there is no existence of prima facie case -- placing agreement to sell of plaintiff in juxtaposition to sale deed executed in favour of appellant/defendant No. 5, sale deed being registered document and agreement to sell being unregistered document, sale deed would score over agreement to sell -- for this reason also, there is no prima facie case in favour of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 -- since there is no prima facie case, tests of balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not required to be considered -- order of trial Court granting temporary injunction to plaintiff/respondent No. 1 set aside. Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012 and (2015) 5 SCC 588 followed. 2023 SCC Online MP 753 relied on. [Paras 12, 20 to 23, 27 & 28]
(3) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 and O. 7 R. 11 -- dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 -- effect on later application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 -- application under Order 7 Rule 11 and application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 have completely different criteria of consideration -- application under Order 7 Rule 11 is to be considered strictly based on plaint averments -- application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 has larger scope of consideration of material beyond plaint averments -- dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11 has no bearing on later application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2. [Para 25]
(4) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 -- balance of convenience and irreparable loss -- in absence of prima facie case, Court is not required to consider balance of convenience and irreparable loss. (2010) 1 SCC 689 followed. [Para 27]
ORDER :
PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
The appellant/defendant No.5 has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court in RCS No. 1359- A/2023 whereby the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was allowed.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, declaring the registered sale deed dated 07.10.2021 (executed in favour of appellant/defendant No.5) null and void and for permanent injunction against appellant/defendant No.5 with respect to the land situated in Survey No. 123/1, 124, 125/1 and 129/1 admeasuring total 1.191 hec. in village Mayakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore. The respondent No.1/plaintiff averred in her plaint that an agreement to sale was executed on 22.09.1992 between her husband Mohabbat Ali and Mangu Singh (who was father of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4) with respect to aforesaid suit land. It was also averred that the entire sale consideration was paid by Mohabbat Ali to Mangu Singh and said Mangu Singh delivered possession of the entire suit property to Mohabbat Ali. As there was very good relation between the said two persons, the registered sale deed was not executed. However, Mangu Singh and after him, the defendants No. 1 to 3 and 4 never disturbed the peaceful possession of Mohabbat Ali (husband of plaintiff). Even after the death of those two persons, there was no dispute. It has further been stated in the plaint that the suit was claimed to be filed for the reason that one Girish Jain came along with some goons for taking forcible possession of the suit property and when complaint about the same was presented in the Police Station Lasudia, he produced sale deed dated 07.10.2021 with respect to sale of a part of the suit land. Thus, the plaintiff came to know about execution of a sale deed, hence the suit was filed.
3. The plaintiff, with respect to this sale deed dated 07.10.2021, averred that the same was executed without receiving sale consideration and respondent No.1-Bane Singh's name is not mentioned in the same i.e. he is not one of the executant of the sale deed as the Bane Singh was also having his share in the property as one of the legal heirs of Late Mangu Singh thus the same is not valid. It has further been averred that the sale deed has been executed by delivering paper possession as the possession of the property is with the plaintiff and for all these reasons, it was pleaded that the sale deed is null and void and for the reason that all the ingredients of a sale are satisfied in the case of plaintiff i.e. possession has been delivered, entire sale consideration has been paid and thus, plaintiff is the title holder of the suit property as such, the relief of declaration of title on the suit property, declaration of sale deed dated 07.10.2021 as null and void and for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 with respect of alienation and construction on the property was prayed for. Significantly, the specific performance of the agreement to sale was not sought. It may be profitable to point out here that the so-called agreement to sale dated 22.09.1992 is an unregistered document.
4. Along with plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was also filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff thereby praying for temporary injunction. The appellant/defendant No.5 filed its reply to the application for temporary injunction in which it raised doubts about the genuineness of the purported agreement to sale and even on the receipt of possession. It was pointed out in the reply that the alleged agreement was typed on a stamp paper obtained on 12.06.1990 in which Mangu Singh is shown as seller and Mohabbat Ali is shown as purchaser. Thus the agreement is dated 12.06.1990 as apparent on page No. 2. The agreement was notarized. However, the third page of the agreement would show that the
A sale deed is void if no consideration was paid; registration does not validate it, and its improper registration does not confer title.
An unregistered agreement to sell immovable property does not confer ownership rights; registration is mandatory for valid transfer of title.
An oral agreement for the sale of immovable property is unenforceable without a written and registered agreement under the Registration Act and Specific Relief Act.
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.
Mere admission of signatures in unregistered document not sufficient to prove execution. Possessory rights cannot be established solely based on unregistered agreement without taking steps for regist....
An agreement to sell lacking compliance with statutory requirements under the Transfer of Property Act is invalid and does not confer rights, necessitating restoration of possession to the rightful o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
