Unregistered agreement to sell gives no title: Supreme Court dismisses decades-old possession suit

The Supreme Court has dismissed a civil appeal arising from a 1975 suit for possession of property that the plaintiffs claimed to have acquired under an unregistered 1960 Agreement to Sell, holding the suit hopelessly barred by limitation and the underlying claim unsustainable in law. Smt. Rano Singh and others, as legal heirs continuing the litigation against Gurbax Singh's legal representatives, argued that part-performance of the 1960 agreement entitled them to retain or recover possession even without a registered sale deed. The Court held that an Agreement to Sell, by itself, confers no title to immovable property — only a registered sale deed can transfer ownership — so the plaintiffs never acquired more than a contractual right against the original vendor.

It further held that the plaintiffs' long inaction after the alleged agreement amounted to acquiescence, estopping them from now asserting possession, and that they had in any event failed to establish the essential conditions for the statutory defence of part-performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — which protects a transferee in possession pursuant to a contract, but does not itself transfer title or create an independent cause of action to claim possession. The suit, filed well outside the limitation period for a possession claim, was accordingly dismissed.