Agreement to sell and part performance cannot, without statutory compliance, prevent ejectment or justify a Section 10 CPC stay.

An agreement to sell did not, by itself, create any right to remain in possession or alter the occupier's legal status, so it could not be used to resist ejectment. The doctrine of part performance was unavailable because the alleged arrangement was not shown through a registered instrument meeting the statutory requirements, and the asserted delivery of possession was not established in the manner required by law. On that basis, the ejectment suit was not liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC or consolidated with the earlier specific performance suit, as the two proceedings did not involve the same matter in issue in the legal sense.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for ejectment ought to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or consolidated with the previously instituted suit for specific performance on the ground that common questions of law and fact arose. (ii) Whether an agreement to sell, or the doctrine of part performance, enabled the petitioner to retain possession and resist eviction.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for ejectment ought to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or consolidated with the previously instituted suit for specific performance on the ground that common questions of law and fact arose.

Analysis: The plea for stay depended on whether the earlier suit for specific performance and the later ejectment suit involved the same matter in issue. The agreement relied upon did not, by itself, confer any right to remain in occupation of the premises. The petitioner's asserted defence in the ejectment suit was therefore not one that could make the issues in both suits common in the legal sense required for a stay. The request for transfer and consolidation was also found to be unfair to the respondents and likely to delay the ejectment proceedings.

Conclusion: The suit for ejectment was not liable to be stayed or consolidated on the basis of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether an agreement to sell, or the doctrine of part performance, enabled the petitioner to retain possession and resist eviction.

Analysis: A mere agreement to sell does not create any proprietary interest in immovable property and, until conveyance, does not alter the tenant's legal status. The doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was held unavailable because there was no registered agreement satisfying the statutory requirements, and the materials relied upon did not establish delivery of possession in part performance in the manner required by law. The amended registration and stamping regime also prevented the petitioner from asserting such a defence without a registered instrument. Consequently, the tenancy could not be treated as having come to an end merely on the basis of the alleged oral understanding.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not resist eviction on the basis of the alleged agreement to sell or part performance.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order refusing stay failed, and the ejectment proceedings were permitted to continue, with no legal basis found to protect the petitioner's possession pending the specific performance action.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to sell does not by itself create a right to remain in possession, and the protection of part performance is unavailable unless the statutory requirements for a registered instrument and delivery of possession are satisfied; absent such entitlement, Section 10 CPC cannot be invoked to stay ejectment proceedings on the footing of a separate specific performance suit.

---