The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an unregistered agreement to sell, being in contravention of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be accepted by the Court for granting possession in favour of the claimant party.
The observation was made by Justice Alka Sarin while dealing with a revision petition filed by the Plaintiff-petitioners, claiming possession of the suit property on the basis of a recital in an unregistered agreement to sell.
“The agreement to sell dated 03.09.2015 is also an unregistered document whereunder possession was purportedly handed over to the plaintiff-petitioners. Such an unregistered document cannot be accepted being in contravention of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. In the absence of any document showing the possession of the plaintiff-petitioners, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below,” the Bench said.
It further noted that besides the recital in the alleged agreement to sell, no documentary evidence was placed on the record to show petitioner’s possession.
The Petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction averring therein that they were the owners in possession of suit property. It was submitted that one Wazir Chand had executed a written agreement to sell in their favour and also handed over possession to them, and they in turn had constructed a boundary wall on the plot and had installed a gate and the same was in their possession since then. However, the sale deed could not be executed and a suit for specific performance was also pending qua the same.
The Respondents on the other hand claimed title over the land and produced a registered sale deed.
In this backdrop, the High Court observed,
“The defendant-respondents have a registered sale deed in their favour whereas the document being sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff-petitioners is an agreement to sell…Besides the recital in the alleged agreement to sell dated 03.09.2015, there is no documentary evidence on the record to show the possession of the plaintiff-petitioners.“
Thus, the Court refused to grant injunction stating that the plaintiff-petitioners have not been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour and neither is the balance of convenience in their favour.
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Phool Singh and Another versus Amit Kumar and Others