An agreement to sell gives the intending buyer no title, and a suit built only on such an agreement, without a claim for specific performance, cannot yield a declaration or an injunction against the seller or a later purchaser, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held while dismissing a Gohad land suit that began in 1990.
Gwalior: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a second appeal by the purchaser of a plot in Gohad, District Bhind, set aside concurrent decrees of the Civil Judge Class-I and the Additional District Judge, Gohad, passed in 2001, and dismissed the suit of a plaintiff who claimed the land on the strength of a registered agreement to sell dated December 27, 1989 [Kiledar Singh (Deceased) through LRs Kalyan Singh and others v. Anil Kumar and others].
Justice Ashish Shroti delivered the judgment on October 23, 2026, after reserving it on October 6. The appeal had been admitted in 2008 on two substantial questions of law: whether a decree of declaration and permanent injunction could be granted on the basis of an agreement to sell, and whether the courts below could declare a later sale deed ineffective when ad valorem court fee had not been paid.
Background
The suit concerned 0.158 hectare out of Survey No. 1712, measuring 0.549 hectare, in village Gohad. The plaintiff, Anil Kumar, pleaded that defendant no. 1 agreed on December 27, 1989 to sell him the land for Rs 33,000, took Rs 5,200 as advance before witnesses and handed over possession, with the sale deed to follow once the seller’s name was mutated over the share of a deceased relative in the revenue records. Alleging that the seller was negotiating with others, the plaintiff sued on July 13, 1990 for a declaration that defendant no. 1 had no right to sell the land to anyone else and for a permanent injunction restraining him from doing so.
After the suit was filed, defendant no. 1 and his brothers sold the land to Kiledar Singh by a sale deed dated October 10, 1991. The plaintiff amended the plaint to challenge that deed. The trial court decreed the suit on January 18, 2001, holding that the registered agreement gave the plaintiff title and possession and that the later sale deed was null and void. The first appellate court affirmed that decree on September 28, 2001. Kiledar Singh, defendant no. 4, filed the second appeal, which his legal representatives pursued after his death.
Advocate Avadhesh Parashar for the appellants argued that an agreement to sell conveys no title and that no decree could follow without a claim for specific performance. Government Advocate Rajendra Jain appeared for the State. No one appeared for the plaintiff despite service of notice.
Title was never conveyed
The Court found that the plaintiff’s claim of ownership rested solely on the registered agreement, under which only part of the price had been paid and the sale deed was to be executed later.
“Thus, it is evident that the parties only agreed to sell the suit land, but title of the land was not conveyed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s assertion of acquiring title over the suit land based upon the agreement to sale dated 27.12.1989, was thus, not acceptable.”
The judgment relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd v. State of Haryana, which holds that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act an agreement of sale, with or without possession, is not a conveyance and creates no interest in or charge on the property, and that the protection under Section 53-A is a shield against the transferor alone. It also relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Indian Overseas Bank v.
M.A.S. Subramanian and RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar, and on the High Court’s own decisions in Prem Bai v. Neelam and Nehal Shah v. Jameet Singh Kachhwahe, which hold that a suit for a bare negative injunction without a claim for specific performance is not maintainable.
No specific performance, no decree
The Court held that the plaintiff was required to claim specific performance of the 1989 agreement but had not done so, and that without title he could not obtain either the declaration or the injunction he sought.
“Thus, in absence of any relief for specific performance of agreement to sell, there is no chance of plaintiff’s acquiring title over the suit property. Further, without having title over the property, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of permanent injunction also. Thus, the declaration sought by the plaintiff only to the effect that the defendant shall not alienate his property to anyone else and the permanent injunction to restrain him from alienating the property, was not permissible in law. No decree therefore could have been granted by the Courts below.”
The first substantial question of law was answered by holding that the courts below had committed an error of law in granting the decree of declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of the agreement to sell.
Court fee question answered but inconsequential
On the second question, the Court held, relying on Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, that since the plaintiff was not a party to the 1991 sale deed, he was not required to pay ad valorem court fee to seek a declaration that it was null and void. The answer, the Court said, was inconsequential in view of its finding on the first question.
The Court set aside the judgments and decrees of September 28, 2001 in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/2001 and of January 18, 2001 in Civil Suit No. 1-A/1996, dismissed the suit, allowed the appeal, and directed the plaintiff to bear the costs of the appeal.
Why the judgment matters
The judgment applies a settled rule of property law to a common litigation mistake. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act makes a registered sale deed the only way to transfer immovable property worth more than Rs 100, and an agreement to sell, however old and however much of the price has been paid, creates no interest in the land. An intending buyer who wants the land must sue for specific performance; a suit asking the court only to stop the seller from dealing with his own property asks for a negative injunction the law does not allow.
The case also shows how costly the error can be. Both courts below decreed the suit on the footing that the earlier agreement defeated the later sale deed, and the litigation ran for more than three decades before the High Court held that the suit was misconceived at the outset. The buyer under the 1991 sale deed, whose heirs pursued the appeal, now holds the land free of the 2001 decrees.
Case Title: Kiledar Singh (Deceased) through LRs Kalyan Singh and others v. Anil Kumar and others [Second Appeal No. 438 of 2001; Neutral Citation 2026:MPHC-GWL:32136]
Bench: Justice Ashish Shroti, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench
Date of Judgment: October 23, 2026
Appearances: Avadhesh Parashar for the appellants; Rajendra Jain, Government Advocate, for the State