Buyer’s Heirs’ Title Claim Fails: Gujarat HC Upholds Dismissal Of Suit Based On Registered Agreement To Sell

The plaintiff’s legal heirs appealed under Section 100 CPC against concurrent judgments dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.

The plaintiff had sought a declaration that a registered agreement to sell gave him right, title and interest in the suit property, together with consequential relief.

The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed that decision.

The High Court noted that the appellants had not supplied the paper-book, but permitted counsel to argue from the impugned judgments and available documents.

The plaintiff had not sought specific performance of the agreement.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that an agreement for sale does not, by itself, create an interest in or charge on immovable property; transfer of ownership requires a duly registered sale deed where registration is required.

The Court also relied on Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in assessing the declaratory relief sought, and noted that no specific-performance relief had been claimed.

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies only where a substantial question of law arises; the High Court may not disturb factual findings merely by reappreciating evidence, subject to recognised exceptions such as findings contrary to law, based on inadmissible evidence, or unsupported by evidence.

The Court cited Indian Overseas Bank v. A.S. Subramanian (Civil Appeal Nos. 282 & 283 of 2025), Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth, and Jaichand (Dead) through LRs v. Sahnulal.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s central claim—that the registered agreement to sell itself vested right, title or interest in the property—was legally untenable under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Because the plaintiff had not sought specific performance, the Court did not consider whether that relief might otherwise have been available; it also observed that the courts below had found the plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the agreement.

The consequential relief could not stand once the principal declaration was unavailable.

The concurrent findings disclosed no basis for interference under Section 100 CPC, and no substantial question of law arose.

No order was made as to costs.