Agreement to sell creates no interest in immovable property; benami claim fails without proof of title and consideration nexus.

An agreement to sell and part payment did not create any interest, title, or charge in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Where sale deeds were not executed and the properties remained with the builder, the alleged benamidars could not be treated as holding title or proprietary interest. The record also did not establish that consideration was provided by the alleged beneficial owner or that the essential nexus for a benami transaction existed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. On that basis, the transactions were not proved to be benami and the properties were not liable to be treated as benami property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned transactions and properties fell within the definition of a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; (ii) whether an agreement to sell and part payment created any interest, title, or charge in favour of the alleged benamidars so as to treat the properties as benami property.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned transactions and properties fell within the definition of a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: The appellate record showed that the alleged benamidars had made only partial advances to the builder under agreements to sell and that the sale deeds had not been executed. The essential ingredients of benami holding were not established, because the properties had not been transferred to or held by the alleged benamidars, and the material also did not establish that the consideration was proved to have been provided by the alleged beneficial owner. The finding of the adjudicating authority that no nexus with the alleged beneficial owner had been proved was affirmed.

Conclusion: The transactions were not proved to be benami and the properties were not liable to be treated as benami property.

Issue (ii): Whether an agreement to sell and part payment created any interest, title, or charge in favour of the alleged benamidars so as to treat the properties as benami property.

Analysis: Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a contract for sale does not by itself create any interest in or charge on immovable property. Since only part consideration had been paid and no registered sale deed had been executed, ownership continued with the builder. The alleged benamidars therefore acquired no title or proprietary interest capable of supporting the benami case.

Conclusion: An agreement to sell and part payment did not create any interest, title, or charge in the properties in favour of the alleged benamidars.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the essential ingredients of benami holding were not established and the impugned order required no interference.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to sell does not by itself create any interest or charge in immovable property, and a benami finding cannot be sustained unless the property is shown to be held by the alleged benamidar for consideration provided by another person with clear evidentiary nexus.

---