An unregistered agreement to sell confers no title or enforceable proprietary rights in immovable property.

The appellant-plaintiff claimed to be the owner and occupier of Flat No. 7/A, first floor, Muktajivan Society, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad, allegedly purchased under a sale agreement dated 11 December 2000 executed before a Notary.

He asserted that the open space below his flat was a common area in which he was entitled to park his vehicle.

According to him, the respondents, who occupied the ground-floor premises, obstructed his parking, removed or damaged his scooter, abused him and threatened him.

He therefore instituted a suit seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from removing or damaging his vehicle and from obstructing his use of the common area for parking.

The City Civil Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred the present First Appeal.

The trial court found that the plaintiff had not produced the sale agreement or examined the alleged vendor, and had also failed to establish the existence of a common plot or a right to park there.

1. Whether the plaintiff proved that he was the owner of the suit property.

2. Whether the plaintiff proved that he was in actual possession of the suit property.

3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to use the alleged common plot for parking his vehicle.

4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the injunctions sought against the defendants.

The Court applied Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, under which an agreement to sell does not by itself create any interest in or charge upon immovable property and ownership passes only through a duly executed conveyance; Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 require a registered sale deed for transfer of title.

Relying on Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, and Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand, AIR 2025 SC 4108, the Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell, including one notarised, does not confer title, except for the limited protective operation of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court further relied on Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, (2004) 8 SCC 614, for the principle that Section 53-A operates only as a shield against the transferor and cannot establish ownership or be asserted against third parties.

The burden remained on the plaintiff to establish his own case and entitlement to equitable injunctive relief, notwithstanding any weakness in the defence.

The Court also referred to Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, regarding costs for frivolous or abusive litigation.

The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove a legally recognised title because he neither produced the original sale agreement nor established a registered sale deed; a notarised or unregistered agreement could not transfer ownership under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Although the trial court accepted the plaintiff’s possession and noted the defendants’ admission concerning Flat No. 7/A, the plaintiff still had to independently prove the asserted right to use the disputed area for parking.

The pleadings, documentary material, sale-agreement copy and Commissioner’s report did not establish that the ground-floor space was a common plot allotted for use by the plaintiff or other society members.

The material instead showed that House No. 7/2 was in the defendants’ possession and that the adjoining area was a common passage, not a parking plot.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed both to establish the legal basis of his alleged parking right and to demonstrate entitlement to the requested injunction.

The Court held that the unregistered notarised agreement did not confer ownership and that the plaintiff failed to prove any enforceable right to park his vehicle in the alleged common area.

The plaintiff was directed to pay costs of ₹10,000 to the City and District Law Library, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, within two weeks; failing payment, a recovery certificate was ordered to be issued and the amount recovered as arrears of revenue.

The Registry was directed to return the record and proceedings, if any, to the concerned court.