2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2798

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Onkar Dass – Appellant
Versus
Meeran Devi – Respondent
CR/16/2026

An unregistered agreement to sell executed after the 2001 amendment to the Registration Act does not create property interest or allow protection of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, rendering a suit for permanent injunction without a cause of action.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Cause of action - The power to reject a plaint serves as a filter in civil litigation to terminate proceedings at the threshold where the case, even if accepted in its entirety, fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by law. (Paras 17, 25)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Agreement to sell - A contract for the sale of immovable property does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property; title can only be conveyed through a registered sale deed. (Para 19)

(C) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1A) read with Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Part performance - Documents containing contracts to transfer immovable property for the purposes of Section 53A must be registered if executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001; failure to register such documents renders them ineffective for the purposes of Section 53A. (Paras 26, 27)

(D) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 49 - Effect of non-registration - An unregistered document required to be registered shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, except as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of a collateral transaction. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed seeking to restrain the defendant from changing the nature of, constructing upon, alienating, or ousting the plaintiff from specific land. The plaintiff based the claim on an unregistered agreement to sell, asserting that possession had been delivered. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the plaintiff had no title to the suit land and the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff should have filed for specific performance.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the agreement to sell was executed after the 2001 amendment to the Registration Act and was not registered. Consequently, the plaintiff could not avail the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to protect possession. Since the agreement does not create any interest in the property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and the plaintiff had a cause of action for specific performance, the suit for permanent injunction was found to be without a cause of action.

Issues: Whether a suit for permanent injunction to protect possession can be maintained on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell executed after the 2001 amendment to the Registration Act.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered agreement to sell executed after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, does not confer any right to protect possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Such a document does not create any title or interest in the property per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, a suit for permanent injunction based on such a document fails to disclose a cause of action, as the appropriate legal remedy is a suit for specific performance.

Result: Petition allowed and the plaint rejected.