Agreement to sell and benami property findings: no title without registered conveyance, and attachment failed for lack of proof.

An agreement to sell immovable property, without a registered conveyance, does not create any interest, title or charge in the property under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; ownership passes only by registered instrument. On that basis, the alleged purchaser acquired no proprietary right where only part consideration had been paid and no registered sale deed existed. The Tribunal also noted that the essential ingredients of a benami transaction were not established because the alleged benamidar had neither acquired ownership nor held the property, while the original owner remained in possession. With no reliable proof of beneficial-owner funding, the foundation for provisional attachment and adjudication under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an agreement to sell, without execution of a registered sale deed, created any interest, title or charge in the immovable property in favour of the proposed purchaser. (ii) Whether the impugned property and the underlying transaction could be treated as benami so as to sustain the provisional attachment and the adjudication order under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether an agreement to sell, without execution of a registered sale deed, created any interest, title or charge in the immovable property in favour of the proposed purchaser.

Analysis: The legal effect of a contract for sale was examined with reference to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A contract for sale of immovable property does not, by itself, create any interest in or charge on such property, and ownership in property of the value involved can pass only by a registered instrument. The record also showed that only part consideration had been paid, and no registered conveyance had come into existence.

Conclusion: The agreement to sell did not confer any title, interest or charge in the property.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned property and the underlying transaction could be treated as benami so as to sustain the provisional attachment and the adjudication order under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: Since the alleged benamidar had not acquired ownership or holding in the property, and the interested party continued to remain owner and in possession, the essential ingredients of a benami transaction were not established. The Tribunal also found no reliable evidence that the alleged cash infusions were made by the beneficial owner. On this basis, the applicability of Section 2(9)(A) was found doubtful, and the foundation for confirmation of the provisional attachment failed.

Conclusion: The property and transaction were not proved to be benami, and the attachment and adjudication could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief following to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to sell does not create any interest in immovable property, and where no registered transfer has occurred and the alleged benamidar has neither held nor owned the property, the transaction cannot be sustained as benami under the Act.

---