Buyer With Only An Agreement To Sell Cannot Stop Seller From Selling Land: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has held that a person holding only an agreement to sell cannot claim ownership of the land, and cannot ask a court to stop the seller from dealing with it, unless he also seeks specific performance of that agreement.

Justice Ashish Shroti allowed a second appeal filed by the land purchaser, setting aside concurrent decrees of 2001 and dismissing a suit pending for over three decades.

The appeal, titled Kiledar Singh (Deceased) Through LRs Kalyan Singh and Others vs Anil Kumar and Others, was filed by the buyer under a 1991 sale deed. It challenged judgments of the Additional District Judge, Gohad (28.09.2001) and the Civil Judge Class-I, Gohad (18.01.2001), both favouring the plaintiff.

The dispute concerned 0.158 hectare out of Survey No. 1712, measuring 0.549 hectare, in Gohad, District Bhind. The plaintiff claimed that the seller agreed on 27.12.1989 to sell him the land for Rs 33,000, took Rs 5,200 as advance and gave possession. The sale deed was to be executed once the seller’s name was mutated in the revenue records.

Alleging the seller was negotiating with others, the plaintiff sued on 13.07.1990, seeking a declaration that the seller could not sell the land to anyone else and a permanent injunction restraining him from doing so. After the suit was filed, the seller and his brothers sold the land to Kiledar Singh through a deed dated 10.10.1991. The plaintiff amended his plaint to challenge it. Both the trial court and the first appellate court decreed his suit, holding that the earlier agreement made the later sale deed void.

The High Court admitted the appeal in 2008 on two questions: whether such a decree could be granted on the strength of an agreement to sell, and whether the sale deed could be declared void when ad valorem court fee had not been paid.

Advocate Avadhesh Parashar, for the appellants, argued that an agreement to sell conveys no title and 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.

Agreeing with the appellants, Justice Shroti observed that the plaintiff had based his claim of ownership “solely” on the registered agreement. “The parties only agreed to sell the suit land, but title of the land was not conveyed in favour of the plaintiff,” the court noted.

The court leaned on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd vs State of Haryana, which says that “an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance.” It also relied on recent Supreme Court rulings in Indian Overseas Bank vs M.A.S. Subramanian and RBANMS Educational Institution vs B. Gunashekar, and its own earlier decisions in Prem Bai and Nehal Shah, which stress that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act protects an intending buyer’s possession against the seller, not ownership against the world.

The court found a fatal gap in the suit. “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,” the judgment states. It added that without title, the plaintiff “was not entitled to a decree of permanent injunction also,” and that a declaration stopping the seller from alienating his land “was not permissible in law.”

On the second question, the court held that the plaintiff, who was not a party to the 1991 sale deed, was not required to pay ad valorem court fee for seeking a declaration that it was void, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh. It called the answer “inconsequential” in view of its finding on the first question.

Setting aside both judgments, the High Court dismissed the suit and directed the plaintiff to bear the cost of the appeal.

Case Title: Kiledar Singh (Deceased) Through LRs Kalyan Singh and Others vs. Anil Kumar and Others

Judgment Date: October 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Ashish Shroti