Agreement To Sell Property Doesn’t Make Buyer An Owner, Says Allahabad High Court

Last Updated:November 17, 2025, 16:05 IST

The court emphasised that such agreements create no legal interest in the property and merely provide a right to seek specific performance

Allahabad High Court (File pic)

The Allahabad High Court has held that persons holding an agreement to sell by a property owner cannot claim any ownership rights in property disputes nor demand to be added as parties in an ongoing case related to the property.

The court emphasised that such agreements create no legal interest in the property and merely provide a right to seek specific performance.

Justice Manish Kumar Nigam on November 13, 2025, allowed a civil revision petition and quashed the order of a Gautam Buddh Nagar court which had permitted two individuals to be impleaded in a family partition suit on the strength of an unregistered agreement to sell.

Within the Chauhan family, there was a long-standing dispute over a property located at C-103B, Sector-39, NOIDA, measuring 163 square metres. The property was initially owned by the late BS Chauhan and his wife Phool Kumari Chauhan. Following BS Chauhan’s death, the NOIDA Authority mutated the property in Phool Kumari’s name with the consent of her children, including the revisionist, Deependra. However, disagreements later arose, prompting Deependra to file a civil suit in 2020, seeking partition and an injunction restraining his mother and siblings from selling or transferring the property.

During the pendency of this suit, Phool Kumari allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the entire property to two outsiders i.e. respondents 4 and 5 on July 12, 2023. The two then approached the civil court seeking to be impleaded as parties to the case. Deependra objected, arguing that his mother was merely a co-owner and that the sale agreement was executed in collusion to frustrate his claim. He further cited that the NOIDA Authority had rejected the mother’s request to sell the property on June 14, 2023.

Despite these objections, the trial court allowed their impleadment in August 2023, prompting Deependra to challenge the decision before the high court.

While examining the matter, Justice Nigam observed that an agreement to sell does not convey ownership or even an equitable interest in the property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Citing Supreme Court decisions including Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (2004) and Rambaran Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra (1967), the court reiterated that only a registered sale deed transfers ownership.

The court also invoked the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Act, which prohibits the transfer of property involved in ongoing litigation. “A person having an agreement to sell in his favour is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit," the court held, noting that any transfer attempt made during litigation without permission is hit by the doctrine and has no legal effect.

Finding that the trial court had acted with material irregularity, the high court set aside its order dated August 29, 2023, and allowed the revision in favour of Deependra Chauhan.

Salil Tiwari

Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr...Read More

Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr...

Read More

News india Agreement To Sell Property Doesn’t Make Buyer An Owner, Says Allahabad High Court

Read More