Agreement to sell creates no title; benami finding fails without proof of statutory ingredients and beneficial ownership.

An agreement to sell immovable property does not, by itself, create any interest, title, or charge; title passes only by a registered conveyance, so the proposed purchaser acquired no proprietary right where only part consideration was paid and no sale deed executed. A benami finding under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 requires affirmative proof that the property was held in one person's name for the benefit of another and that the statutory ingredients are satisfied on evidence; on the record, those elements were not established. The provisional attachment was therefore held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an agreement to sell created any interest, title, or charge in favour of the proposed purchaser so as to support the benami allegation. (ii) Whether the attached property and the impugned transaction satisfied the ingredients of a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether an agreement to sell created any interest, title, or charge in favour of the proposed purchaser so as to support the benami allegation.

Analysis: A contract for sale of immovable property does not, by itself, create any interest in or charge on the property. Title in immovable property passes only by a registered conveyance, and until such conveyance, ownership remains with the vendor. On the facts, only part consideration had been paid and no sale deed had been executed, so the proposed purchaser did not acquire any proprietary interest merely because of the agreement to sell.

Conclusion: No interest, title, or charge arose in favour of the proposed purchaser from the agreement to sell.

Issue (ii): Whether the attached property and the impugned transaction satisfied the ingredients of a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: A benami finding requires material showing that the property was held in one person's name for the benefit of another and that the statutory ingredients are made out on evidence. The record showed only partial payment, no transfer of title to the alleged benamidar, and no reliable proof that the beneficial owner funded the entire transaction in the manner alleged. In these circumstances, the applicability of the benami definition was not established.

Conclusion: The transaction and the provisionally attached property were not proved to be benami.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of provisional attachment was unsustainable and the appeals succeeded, resulting in setting aside of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to sell does not by itself create any proprietary interest in immovable property, and a benami conclusion cannot stand unless the statutory ingredients are affirmatively proved on evidence.

---