https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272703 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. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 May 2018 14:36:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272703 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272703