City
Epaper

Agreement to sell does not transfer ownership or confer any title, says SC

By IANS | Updated: November 15, 2023 12:50 IST

New Delhi, Nov 15 The Supreme Court has said that entering into an agreement to sell does not ...

Open in App

New Delhi, Nov 15 The Supreme Court has said that entering into an agreement to sell does not transfer ownership rights or confer any title in favour of the proposed buyer.

“The Agreement to Sell is not a conveyance; it does not transfer ownership rights or confer any title,” observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal as it decided a special leave petition filed against an order of the Karnataka High Court.

In 1990, the parties had executed an agreement to sell after the entire sale consideration was paid and possession was handed over to the appellant-proposed buyer. Under this agreement, it was also stipulated that the sale deed would be executed once restriction under the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act was lifted.

Later in 1991, the Fragmentation Act was repealed but respondents refused to execute the sale deed. This resulted in filing a suit for specific performance which was decreed by the first appellate court.

On appeal, the High Court in its impugned 2010 decision had dismissed the suit for specific performance saying that the Agreement to Sell was void in view of the prohibition imposed on registration of the sale deed under the Fragmentation Act.

“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 Supreme Court said, adding that lease, sale, conveyance or transfer of rights were barred and “the Agreement to Sell cannot be said to be barred under 5 the Fragmentation Act.”

“The appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned order and judgment of the High Court dated 10.11.2010 is hereby set aside, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 17.04.2008, decreeing the suit of the appellant, stands restored,” the top court held.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Open in App

Related Stories

InternationalUkraine calls Miami meetings "productive, constructive", discusses development of 20-point plan with US

InternationalIndian H-1B visa holders who flew back to renew work permits left stranded

InternationalEpstein files: US Department of Justice reposts President Trump's photo

InternationalPakistan: Man allegedly opens fire inside house; kills wife, two women, one minor

InternationalRussia launched 1300 drones, 1200 guided aerial bombs at Ukraine over past week: Zelenskyy

National Realted Stories

NationalBihar: Bagaha's Suman Devi scripts success story of self-reliance, earns lakhs through beekeeping

National'Nation first must guide thought and action', Arunachal Guv tells NCC cadets

NationalTurn Yoga and meditation into a mass movement for a healthy, balanced society: Gujarat CM

NationalKCR announces mass movement over irrigation projects

NationalChains of Commerce: How Britain’s need for gold forced ‘circuitous route’ that crushed India’s trade (From the Archives)