Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules That Possession Cannot Be Protected on the Basis of an Unregistered Agreement to Sell; Temporary Injunction Set Aside as Section 53A TPA Requires Mandatory Registration

Case Name: Gajjan Singh @ Gurbachan Singh and Another v. Jogender Singh

Date of Judgment: 09 July 2026

Citation: CR-704-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain.

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a plaintiff cannot seek protection of possession through a temporary injunction by invoking the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the strength of an unregistered agreement to sell. After the insertion of Section 17(1A) in the Registration Act, 1908, registration of an agreement to sell is mandatory for claiming the benefit of Section 53A. An unregistered agreement neither creates nor protects any right in immovable property for the purpose of part performance and, therefore, cannot constitute a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The Court held that the courts below committed a jurisdictional error in overlooking the statutory mandate and granting interim protection solely on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell.

Summary: The revision petition challenged concurrent orders of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad and the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff in a suit seeking protection of possession on the basis of an agreement to sell. The defendants contended that the suit itself was not maintainable because the plaintiff relied exclusively upon an unregistered agreement to sell and sought to invoke Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The respondent argued that the agreement had in fact been executed, that allegations of fraud raised by the defendants required evidence at trial, and that the courts below had rightly protected the plaintiff’s possession until adjudication of the suit. Examining the statutory framework, the High Court noted that Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 expressly mandates registration of documents relied upon for invoking the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court observed that once the agreement to sell remained unregistered, it ceased to have any legal efficacy for claiming possessory protection under Section 53A. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish even a prima facie enforceable right capable of being protected by an interim injunction. The High Court concluded that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ignored the mandatory statutory requirement of registration and erroneously exercised jurisdiction by granting interim protection on the basis of a legally unenforceable document.

Decision: The Civil Revision was allowed. The High Court set aside the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court granting temporary injunction and dismissed the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that no interim protection could be granted on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell incapable of attracting Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.