The Supreme Court has held that even though an agreement to sell may not be regarded as a transaction of sale but the prospective purchaser having performed his part of the contract acquires possessory title over the property.
Furthermore, such possession cannot be invaded by the transferer, hence, entitling the owner right for an eviction decree with mesne profits.
Brief Facts of the Case:
A suit was instituted against the appellant by the respondent for his eviction from the suit premises and for mesne profits on the averment that the respondent in the immediate case was the owner of the property by virtue of an agreement to sell, power of attorney, a memo of possession and a receipt of payment as well as a will of the appellant bequeathing the said property in the appellant’s favor.
Pursuant to such transfer of property, the respondent allowed the appellant to stay there for 3 months as a licensee. However, the appellant failed to vacate the suit premises after the termination of license and after losing the case in all the three courts below, the appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court contesting the validity of ownership of the disputed property by the respondent on the claim that the aforementioned documents were obtained via fraud and manipulation.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The defendant-appellant contested the suit on the ground that the aforesaid documents (the power of attorney, memo of possession etc.) had been manipulated on blank papers but without disputing the execution of any of them or that the possession memo was not executed or that the sale consideration as per the agreement was not paid.
Contention of the Respondent:
It was argued by the respondent that a categorical finding of the facts nowhere proved that the documents were obtained by misrepresentation, manipulation or by playing fraud upon the defendant-appellant and the completion of his part of the contract by paying the consideration instituted the property in his name.
Supreme Court's Observation:
The Court observed that although, an agreement to sell was not a document of title or a deed of Transfer of property by sale and as such, may not confer absolute title upon the plaintiff-respondent over the property by virtue of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but , the agreement to sell, the payment of entire sale consideration as mentioned in the agreement itself and corroborated by the receipt of its payment and the fact that the plaintiff-respondent was put in possession of the suit property established by the possession memo on record, proved that the plaintiff-respondent was de-facto having possessory rights over the suit property and such possession couldn’t be disturbed by the transferer.
Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on lack of merits.
Case Title: Ghanshyam vs Yogendra Rathi, 2023 Latest Caselaw 522 SC
Case Details: Civil Appeal Nos. 7527-7528 of 2012
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 522 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta , Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
Case No. : Civil Appeal No.7527-7528 of 2012
Advocates for Petitioner: Advocate Shri Rajul Shrivastav
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :