Agreement to Sell Does Not Convey Title; Suit for Bare Injunction Restraining Vendor From Selling Property To Others Not Maintainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Case
- Not stated in the source
- Bench
- Not stated in the source
- Citation
- Not stated in the source
- Source
- Verdictum
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an agreement to sell does not convey title, and a suit for bare injunction restraining a vendor from selling property to others is not maintainable. The Court set aside concurrent decrees after 36 years, clarifying that a non-executant of a sale deed need not pay ad valorem court fee for a declaration that it is void.
Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established
An agreement to sell does not create any right, title, or interest in the property. A suit for bare injunction to restrain a vendor from selling property to others is not maintainable if the plaintiff only holds an agreement to sell and not a perfected title. A non-executant of a sale deed is not required to pay ad valorem court fee for seeking a declaration that the deed is void.
Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates
Advocates should advise clients that an agreement to sell does not confer title and cannot be the sole basis for a bare injunction against a vendor. Litigants challenging a sale deed where they are not an executant may not need to pay ad valorem court fees for a declaration of its voidness. Counsel must ensure the correct type of suit is filed, as a bare injunction based on an agreement to sell is likely to fail.
Key Legal Takeaways
- 1An agreement to sell does not transfer title.
- 2A bare injunction suit to prevent a vendor from selling property is not maintainable based solely on an agreement to sell.
- 3Non-executants of a sale deed are exempt from ad valorem court fees for seeking a declaration of its voidness.
The Legal Issue
The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed whether an agreement to sell confers title to property and if a suit for bare injunction, seeking to restrain a vendor from selling property to others, is maintainable based solely on such an agreement. The Court also considered the requirement of ad valorem court fees for a non-executant of a sale deed seeking a declaration that the deed is void.
Court's Reasoning
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside concurrent decrees that had been in effect for 36 years. The Court reasoned that an agreement to sell does not, by itself, convey any right, title, or interest in the property to the prospective purchaser. Therefore, a plaintiff who only possesses an agreement to sell cannot maintain a suit for a bare injunction to prevent the vendor from selling the property to other parties. Such a suit would require a perfected title or a claim for specific performance. The Court further clarified that if a person is not an executant of a sale deed, they are not required to pay ad valorem court fees when seeking a declaration that the said sale deed is void.
What Follows
The Court's decision means that the concurrent decrees, which had been in force for 36 years, are now set aside. The implication is that the original vendor is not restrained from selling the property to others, and the plaintiff, if they wish to acquire the property, must pursue appropriate legal remedies such as a suit for specific performance, rather than a bare injunction. Parties challenging a sale deed where they are not an executant can proceed without the burden of ad valorem court fees for a declaration of voidness.