Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In the realm of real estate transactions in India, many buyers and sellers opt for a notarized agreement to sell immovable property, often paired with a supurtnama—a document handing over possession. But a common question arises: Is a notary agreement to sale supurtnama sufficient to claim ownership? This post breaks down the legal validity, requirements, limitations, and enforceability of such documents, drawing from key provisions like Section 54 of the Transfer of Property (TP) Act, 1882, and judicial precedents.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on established case law and statutes. It is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation, as outcomes may vary by facts, jurisdiction, and state amendments.
A notarized agreement to sell is a written contract where the seller promises to transfer immovable property upon payment of the full consideration. It is attested by a licensed notary public in the presence of witnesses. A supurtnama, meanwhile, is a supplementary document confirming the handover of possession to the buyer before the final sale deed.
While convenient and quicker than registration, these do not equate to a full transfer. Generally, they serve as evidence of intent but fall short for title passage. John H. Arseculeratne VS J. B. M. Perera - 1927 0 Supreme(SC) 96
For a notarized agreement to hold legal force:
Courts strictly enforce these. In one case, a document was invalidated because the parties are not identified by a counsel or an advocate, no notary registration number or serial number appeared, attesting witness did not confirm signatures before notary, and evidence showed thumb impression predated notarization. The court emphasized: It is known to one and all that the document which is signed earlier cannot be notarised at a subsequent point of time. The parties have to sign the document before the Notary Public. Radhabai w/o. Khanduji Suryawanshi VS Rajendra s/o. Vinayakrao Dhule - 2007 0 Supreme(Bom) 402
Conversely, validity is upheld when the notary testifies that contents were read over to the parties, witnesses identified parties, and defendant consciously signed after understanding. KRISHNA DEVI SONI VS SHASHI PRABHA GUPTA - 2010 0 Supreme(Chh) 5
Failure in these formalities renders the agreement suspicious or invalid, potentially barring enforcement.
No, a notarized agreement to sell, even with supurtnama, does not transfer title. Section 54 of the TP Act mandates that a sale of immovable property worth over Rs. 100 requires a registered conveyance deed. An agreement creates no interest or charge in the property. Vijay VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1179Zoharbee VS Imam Khan (D) Thr. Lrs. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1827Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited VS Nagraj Ganeshmal Jain - 2017 6 Supreme 239Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Suresh Chand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1286
Landmark rulings like Suraj Lamp reiterate: Immoveable property can be transferred only by a Registered document... Transactions of the nature of 'GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/will transfers' do not convey title. Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited VS Nagraj Ganeshmal Jain - 2017 6 Supreme 239 Power of attorney or notary agreements are not sales: A General Power of Attorney does not ipso facto constitute an instrument of transfer. Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Suresh Chand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1286Bal Krishan Sharma VS MDC Estate Private Limited - Consumer (2019)
In practice, such as in a case involving agricultural land shares, a notarized agreement to sell 50% shares was deemed subsisting for prima facie relief, but no title was adjudicated. The court directed defendants to subject third-party rights to the suit's outcome. UPENDRABHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL VS MANIBEN ALIAS MALIBEN D/O KOYABHAI AND W/O JEKISHANBHAI - 2021 Supreme(Guj) 967
Handing over possession through supurtnama strengthens the buyer's position under Section 53A of the TP Act, offering a defensive shield (part performance). The buyer, if in possession and ready to perform, can resist eviction by the seller.
However, it does not confer title. State stamp acts (e.g., MP Act 1990) may deem such agreements conveyances solely for stamp duty: For the purpose of this Article, where in the case of agreement to sell immovable property, the possession of any immovable property is transferred to the purchaser before execution or after execution of such agreement without executing the conveyance in respect thereof, then such agreement to sell shall be deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be levied accordingly. Vijay VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1179
Examples include interim custody directions where supurtnama was mandated alongside agreements, as in vehicle or property disputes. TITAN COMPANY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED) THROUGH NIRDOSH J DHIYAL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRSHREYANS PRAMOD @ PRAMODKUMAR DAGA vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A properly executed notarized agreement is enforceable for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act. Unregistered documents are admissible as contract evidence per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. S. Kaladevi VS V. R. Somasundaram - 2010 3 Supreme 162
To succeed:- Prove proper execution and notarization.- Demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to pay balance.- Show possession (bolstered by supurtnama) for Section 53A benefits.
Suits for possession alone may fail without prior possession proof. Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Suresh Chand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1286 Time may be of the essence, and fraud (e.g., forged agreements) vitiates claims. Kalyan VS Jagdish Narain - 2015 Supreme(Raj) 1369
In one suit, despite a notarized agreement, relief was denied for lack of readiness proof: plaintiff merely stated willingness without evidence of funds. Sankar Prasad Dash VS Manjulata Dash - 2015 Supreme(Ori) 126
A registered sale deed with possession handover completes the transaction validly, unlike mere agreements. Rameswar Dubey VS Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dead) Through L. Rs. - 2019 Supreme(MP) 486
Ultimately, while a notary agreement to sale supurtnama offers protections, it is no substitute for registration. Prioritize full compliance to avoid disputes. For personalized guidance, reach out to a property law expert.
References:1. John H. Arseculeratne VS J. B. M. Perera - 1927 0 Supreme(SC) 96: Notary + witnesses mandate.2. Radhabai w/o. Khanduji Suryawanshi VS Rajendra s/o. Vinayakrao Dhule - 2007 0 Supreme(Bom) 402: Improper notarization invalidates.3. KRISHNA DEVI SONI VS SHASHI PRABHA GUPTA - 2010 0 Supreme(Chh) 5: Proper execution upheld.4. Vijay VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1179: Stamp duty on possession; no title.5. Zoharbee VS Imam Khan (D) Thr. Lrs. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1827, Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Suresh Chand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1286, Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited VS Nagraj Ganeshmal Jain - 2017 6 Supreme 239: Agreement not conveyance.6. Bal Krishan Sharma VS MDC Estate Private Limited - Consumer (2019): Registration essential.7. S. Kaladevi VS V. R. Somasundaram - 2010 3 Supreme 162: Evidence for specific performance.8. Additional cases: UPENDRABHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL VS MANIBEN ALIAS MALIBEN D/O KOYABHAI AND W/O JEKISHANBHAI - 2021 Supreme(Guj) 967, Sankar Prasad Dash VS Manjulata Dash - 2015 Supreme(Ori) 126, Kalyan VS Jagdish Narain - 2015 Supreme(Raj) 1369, Rameswar Dubey VS Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dead) Through L. Rs. - 2019 Supreme(MP) 486, Nasir s/o Mohammed Khan VS Nadeem s/o Nazir Ahmed Shaikh - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 1229.
#PropertyLaw, #NotaryAgreement, #Supurtnama
to sell dated 08.04.2013, with the plaintiff for its sale in favour of the plaintiff, for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. ... Neither PW1 Prahlad nor PW2 stated in their evidence that they along with defendant and other witness Arun Kumar also put their signatures on the agreement to sell Ex.P1 in the presence of Notary Public but PW4 Bansi Lal Notary Public stated in his cross examination that witnesses Arun Kumar, Pawan Kumar ... PW2 Pawan stated in his cross examination that Sewak Ram ma....
Agreement-Promise to transfer immovable property in consideration of marriage- Should be executed before notary-Prevention of Frauds Ordinance (Cap. 57) Section 2. ... effecting land or other immovable property "; (c) ' Nor any contract or agreement for the future sale or purchase of any land or other immovable property shall be of force unless it is in writing and signed by the party making the same in the presence of a Notary Public and ... Section 2 prohibits 3 things : (a) sale#HL....
Till the final decision in RCC No.684 of 2012, the 2013 on a condition that the Respondent No.2 shall execute the handed over to the Applicant, on Applicant executing the Judicial Magistrate, Nashik be handed over to the Applicant company of executing Supurtnama ... There was an agreement of Management Agent between the Applicant and firm of Respondent No.2.
Sale of land-Deed of sale-Principal and attorney-Sale by power of attorney not notarially executed - Validity of sale - Ordinance No. 7 of 1840, 9. 2-" Person lawfully authorized." ... No sale, contract, &c., shall be of force or avail in law unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the party making the same, or by some person lawfully authorised by him or her in the presence of a notary," &c. ... The notarial agreement in this case, as also the prior m....
The Plaintiff signed an agreement to sell, namely P2 with the 1st Defendant. The advance paid was Rs 10,000. The sale price was stated as Rs. 82,500. The balance to be paid was Rs.72,000 on or before 30.10.1985. ... The Plaintiff deposited the money Rs. 72,500/- with the Lawyer, Notary Public, K.V.P. Jayatillake and the Notary dispatched a letter dated 07.10.1985 to the 1st Defendant to be present in his office on 11.10.1985 to sign the deed of Transfer as promised by agreement P2. ... How els....
An agreement in writing such as P1 can in law be revived only by another writing attested by a notary as required by section 2 of the Prevention of Frauds Ordinance. ... At the time the plaintiffs and the defendant executed the agreement for the purchase and sale of Hapugahalande the defendant had not executed his agreement with the Dangan Company. According to him that agreement was executed ten days later on July 24, 1945. ... The written agreement could be ....
He is satisfied that it was Ramalingam who arranged the sale to him and that even if the evidence of the first co-plaintiff and Notary Vinasithamby as to what they say they told the fourth defendant is accepted in its entirety, it is insufficient to fix him with notice of a trust valid in law as ... I find it difficult to understand how the learned Judge has arrived at this conclusion after satisfying himself that the oral agreement between the parties in the terms stated by the Notary existed. ... for a reconveyan....
Defendant No. 2 has not mentioned the name of the Notary Advocate, who notarized the true copy of the sale deed. The witnesses disclosed the factum of the execution of the sale deed, names of witnesses and the name of Notary in evidence. ... In the written statement, the defendants did not mention the date of execution of the sale-deed, the names of attesting witnesses, or even the name of the notary advocate. 28. ... Although the original copy of the sale-deed was n....
Thereby violating the terms of the Supurtnama and the applicable statutory provisions governing storage and sale of essential commodities. It appears that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. ... Rajya Sahakari Bank, Dharamjaigarh Branch, bearing Account No.603006580909, which clearly demonstrate that no amount whatsoever was credited towards the sale of paddy during the aforesaid period, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. ... proprietor of Om Sai Traders, present applicant was f....
(ii) The petitioner shall execute a Supurtnama in a sum of Judge, whilst granting interim custody of the vehicles, directed the (i) The petitioner is aggrieved by clause 2 and 3, inasmuch as, it over to the petitioner by way of interim custody on his executing before the concerned Court Supurtnama
The said agreement to sale was notarized in the presence of Advocate and Notary by registration no. It is further stated by the appellant that, as stated in the agreement to sale, the price for 7.42 vighas of suit land was decided at Rs.3,52,52,420/-. It is further the case of the appellant – original plaintiff that the original defendant no.1 Maniben @ Maliben and defendant no.5 Diwaliben @ Deviben entered into an agreement to sale dated 06.04.2013 with respect to their 50% share of the suit property / suit land.
Later on, both the plaintiffs have taken money from time to time from the defendant and thereafter, executed the sale deed dated 16-10-1979. The said registered sale deed was executed in the presence of Sub Registrar and it was duly executed by both the plaintiffs Keshar Bai and Chandan Singh in which plaintiff No. 2 Chandan Singh signed the document whereas plaintiff No. 1 Keshar Bai put her thumb impression which was duly endorsed and possession was handed over to the defendant (present appellant) therefore, as per the relevant provisions, sale was complete. It was further submit....
Why a registered document was not got executed is a question, when such a huge amount was allegedly parted with. It is stated that agreement to sell was executed before Notary Public. If at all there was any such agreement, then it was not binding on the complainant to enter into. Applicant has tried to collect the document from Notary, but he says that the register is destroyed.
Accordingly, on 15.12.2004 the agreement for sale (Ext.1) was executed by defendant no.1, which was authenticated before the Notary Public, Bhubaneswar. It was also agreed that at the time of execution of the agreement, the plaintiff would pay to defendant no.1 Rs.5,00,000/- by way of advance consideration. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that as agreed between the parties the sale of the suit land was to be effected in favour of the plaintiff and her husband jointly. The price agreed being not suitable to the plaintiff’s husband, who was also absent on the date of e....
It has been entered in the notary register as per Notary Act, whereas the agreement (Ex.1) in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is forged one and without prayer of setting-aside the sale-deed, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. Appellants are the bonafide purchasers but no such plea has been taken by the plaintiff and only Rs. 10,000/- has been given as advance money and in lieu of this, court below has awarded compensation of lacs of rupees, which is contrary to equity. It has also been contended that agreement dated 14/12/1988 is a genuine agreement.
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
