Unregistered agreements to sell cannot confer title, rendering evidentiary inquiry under Order XXI Rule 58 unnecessary.

Respondent No. 1, the Decree Holder, obtained a decree pursuant to a mediation settlement dated 16.10.2019 arising from an agreement to sell dated 06.05.2018 executed by Respondent No. 2, the Judgment Debtor, concerning immovable property at Bhalaswa, Delhi.

During execution, another property bearing Khasra No. 99/16, Burari, Delhi, was attached. The Appellant, wife of the Judgment Debtor, filed objections under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, claiming that she had purchased the attached property from the Judgment Debtor on 24.01.2017—prior to the Decree Holder’s transaction—through an unregistered GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, will, receipt and possession letter, and had remained in possession thereafter.

The Executing Court dismissed the objections, holding that the documents did not transfer title and that the transaction appeared sham and intended to obstruct execution.

The Appellant challenged that order in the present Execution First Appeal.

1. Whether unregistered documents comprising a GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, will, receipt and possession letter could confer title or a legally enforceable interest in the attached immovable property upon the Appellant.

2. Whether the Executing Court was required to frame issues and permit oral evidence before dismissing the Appellant’s objections under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC.

3. Whether the Appellant could impeach the decree by alleging coercion and force in the settlement between the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor.

4. Whether the surrounding circumstances established that the alleged prior transaction was not bona fide and was intended to obstruct or delay execution.

The Court applied Order XXI Rule 58(2) CPC, under which the Executing Court may adjudicate questions relating to the right, title or interest in attached property, while recognising that the provision does not require oral evidence in every case.

Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, instruments creating or transferring rights in immovable property of the requisite value require registration.

Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 require a sale of immovable property to be effected through a registered conveyance; an agreement to sell, with or without possession, does not itself create title or an interest, subject only to the limited protection under Section 53-A.

Relying on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana , (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Court held that GPA/agreement-to-sell transactions cannot substitute a registered sale deed.

The Court distinguished Manoj Kumar Shah v. Anand Kumar & Anr. , 2006:DHC:29346, which requires evidence where disputed facts are material to a legally sustainable claim, but does not mandate a trial where proof of the alleged facts cannot establish the right asserted.

The Court held that the Appellant claimed ownership solely through unregistered documents executed by the Judgment Debtor. Even assuming their execution and the Appellant’s possession were proved, those documents could not legally operate as a registered conveyance or transfer title under Sections 54–55 of the Transfer of Property Act and Suraj Lamp .

Consequently, the disputed factual questions were not material to the ownership claim and the Executing Court was not obliged to conduct a full evidentiary inquiry.

Independently, the Court found the transaction lacking in bona fides: the Appellant supplied no contemporaneous proof of consideration, gave no adequate details of the alleged debt prompting the sale, relied on a matrimonial transaction allegedly made while the parties were living together, and produced income-tax material only from 2018 onwards despite asserting payment in 2017.

Her allegations that the Judgment Debtor had been coerced into the settlement were based on information allegedly received from an unidentified neighbour, were not raised by the Judgment Debtor himself, and amounted to an attempt to introduce a defence on his behalf in execution.

Thus, Manoj Kumar Shah was inapplicable because the evidence sought could not cure the fundamental legal defect in the Appellant’s claim.

Finding no infirmity in the Executing Court’s order, the High Court dismissed the Execution First Appeal and disposed of the pending applications accordingly.

The date previously fixed for further proceedings, 29.09.2026, was cancelled.