38.6c New Delhi, India, Friday, May 24, 2024
Judiciary

Agreement to sell doesn’t transfer ownership rights or confer any title, Supreme Court holds

By LAWSTREET NEWS NETWORK      16 November, 2023 02:24 PM      0 Comments

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that an agreement to sell does not transfer ownership rights or confer any title on the purchaser of the property.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal said, “The Agreement to Sell is not a conveyance; it does not transfer ownership rights or confers any title. Therefore, an Agreement to Sell cannot be said to be barred under the Fragmentation Act,” the bench said.

The bench was dealing with an appeal arising out of a Karnataka High Court order on a matter under the under the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (the Fragmentation Act).

The bench said what was prohibited or barred under the Fragmentation Act was only a lease/sale/conveyance or transfer of rights, none of which happens merely by way of an Agreement to Sell.

In the present case, the parties had entered into an Agreement to Sell in 1990, however, the seller later refused to execute the sale deed, leading to a dispute and filing of the suit. The primary issue before the Court was whether the agreement to sell itself was in violation of Section 5 of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. The law prohibited the registration of certain sale deeds.

The bench noted that the suit could have been decreed without there being any violation to the law once the Fragmentation Act itself had been repealed in February 1991. “Further, the High Court did not hold that the suit was barred by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The First Appeal Court had considered this aspect and having decided the said issue in favour of the appellant, we need not go into that question at this stage,” the bench said.

The bench said what is further noticeable is that the respondents received the full consideration and had also transferred the possession of the property in question, as such other defences may not be available to them. Even the issue of readiness and willingness on the part of the appellant would not be relevant, it noted.

“The appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned order and judgment of the High Court (Karnataka) dated November 10, 2010, is hereby set aside, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated April 17, decreeing the suit of the appellant, stands restored,” the bench said.

On May 28, 1990, the appellant Munishamappa and the respondents M Rama Reddy and others entered into an agreement to sell, in which the property in question was to be sold for Rs 23,000 and the entire sale consideration was paid before the execution of the agreement to sell, and possession of the property in question was also handed over to the appellant.

The parties deferred the execution of the sale deed due to the legal restriction under the Act.

On February 5, 1991, the Act was repealed and thereafter, the appellant claims to have repeatedly requested the respondents to execute the sale deed, which was merely a formality since the entire sale consideration had already been paid by the appellant, and they had taken the possession of the property in question, which they continued to hold. But the respondents refused it.

The appellant filed the suit for specific performance, which was dismissed by the trial court finding the agreement to sell was doubtful and it was beyond the period of limitation. However, the appellant won in the regular first appeal.

“The respondents preferred Second Appeal before the High Court, which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment dated 10.11.2010, only on the finding that the Agreement to Sell was in violation of the Fragmentation Act, and therefore void," the bench  noted. The appellant challenged this judgment before the apex court.

"There was no issue framed with respect to the violation of the Fragmentation Act, and it was not pleaded in the written statement filed by the respondent," the bench said.

The court further noted the defense taken by the respondent was that he never executed the agreement to sell.

"In his deposition during the cross-examination, the respondents admitted to signatures on the Agreement to Sell. Thus, in the absence of any issue framed, and given that neither party has pleaded any violation of Section 5 of the Fragmentation Act, the High Court apparently fell in error in holding that Agreement to Sell was in violation of Section 5 of the Fragmentation Act," the court said.

 

 

Read Order 

 



Share this article:

About:

Explore Comprehensive Legal Reporting with LawStreet Journal: Your Go-To Source for Supreme Court an...Read more

Follow:
TwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

SC Issues Notice to Centre on PIL by Ashwini Upadhyay to Debar Candidates From Contesting Polls on Framing of Charges  [Read Petition] SC Issues Notice to Centre on PIL by Ashwini Upadhyay to Debar Candidates From Contesting Polls on Framing of Charges [Read Petition]

A bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy sought a response from the Union government's Law and Justice and Home Ministries, and the Election Commission on plea by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

SC to take up PIL by Ashwini Upadhyay for publishing draft laws before hand to strengthen law making process SC to take up PIL by Ashwini Upadhyay for publishing draft laws before hand to strengthen law making process

The Supreme Court is set to take up on October 31 an important PIL by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for a direction to the Centre and States to publish draft legislations 60 days before introducing those in Parliament and State Assemblies

Left well-settled job as engineer to pursue legal reforms, Ashwini K Upadhyay to SC Left well-settled job as engineer to pursue legal reforms, Ashwini K Upadhyay to SC

Upadhyay was arguing in person for his PIL seeking a direction to the Centre and States to constitute expert committees to examine good practices of the countries, ranked among top 20 in Corruption Perception Index.

Uniform laws on inheritance, maintenance, divorce in domain of Parliament: SC to Ashwini K Upadhyay Uniform laws on inheritance, maintenance, divorce in domain of Parliament: SC to Ashwini K Upadhyay

The Supreme Court on Friday orally observed that bringing uniform laws for inheritance, maintenance, divorce and guardianship fell in domain of Parliament.

TRENDING NEWS

no-legal-mandate-for-uploading-of-form-17c-on-website-or-handing-over-to-anyone-other-than-candidate-or-agent-ec-tells-sc
Trending Judiciary
No legal mandate for uploading of Form 17C on website or handing over to anyone other than candidate or agent, EC tells SC

EC tells SC there's no legal mandate to upload Form 17C on websites or provide it to anyone other than candidates or agents, citing risks of misuse and mistrust.

23 May, 2024 11:28 AM
national-security-always-paramount-sc-cancels-bail-of-pfi-members
Trending Judiciary
'National security always paramount,' SC cancels bail of PFI members [Read Judgment]

SC emphasizes national security, cancels bail of eight PFI members, stressing balance between civil liberties and counter-terrorism under UAPA.

23 May, 2024 12:05 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-notice-to-ec-on-plea-by-adr-for-release-of-voters-turnout-data
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to EC on plea by ADR for release of voters turnout data

SC issues notice to EC on ADR plea to release voter turnout data. SC demands EC to disclose vote counts within 48 hours after each phase of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.

18 May, 2024 11:16 AM
recovered-direct-chats-between-kejriwal-and-hawala-operators-on-transfer-of-money-ed-claims-before-sc
Trending Judiciary
Recovered direct chats between Kejriwal and hawala operators on transfer of money, ED claims before SC

ED claims to have recovered direct chats between Kejriwal and hawala operators on money transfer in Delhi liquor policy scam; SC reserves judgement on arrest appeal.

18 May, 2024 11:47 AM
delhi-hc-refuses-jackie-shroff-interim-relief-against-youtuber-unfilteredthugesh-for-alleged-personality-rights-infringement
Trending CelebStreet
Delhi HC refuses Jackie Shroff interim relief against Youtuber 'UnfilteredThugesh' for using "Thug Life" in video on Shroff

The Delhi High Court has refused Jackie Shroff interim relief against Youtuber 'UnfilteredThugesh' for alleged personality rights' infringement.

18 May, 2024 05:20 PM
abuse-under-sc-st-act-has-to-be-in-public-view-to-make-out-offence-sc
Trending Judiciary
Abuse under SC/ST Act has to be in public view to make out offence: SC [Read Judgment]

SC rules abuse under SC/ST Act must be in public view. Case involves Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy, highlighting key requirements for the offence.

18 May, 2024 05:45 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email