Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a purchaser under an earlier agreement to sell, without a decree for specific performance, could restrain mutation and possession in favour of a subsequent purchaser by way of interim injunction.
Analysis: A contract for sale does not by itself create any interest in or charge on immovable property. It confers only a personal right to obtain a conveyance and does not amount to an estate in the property. Until a decree for specific performance is obtained and a sale deed is executed, the prior agreement-holder cannot claim title or interest in the property so as to prevent the transferee under a registered sale deed from enjoying the property, getting mutation effected, or taking possession. Any broader disputes about the validity of the agreement, arbitration clause, or competing rights were left to be decided in the substantive proceedings.
Conclusion: The interim injunction could not be sustained and the revision was allowed in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: A prior agreement to sell does not create an interest in immovable property, and until specific performance is decreed and a conveyance executed, the agreement-holder cannot restrain a subsequent transferee under a registered sale deed from dealing with the property.