In CRR-3491-2018 (O&M)-PUNJ HC-Agreement to sell is not document of title: P&H HC
Justice Avneesh Jhingan [18-08-2022]

Read Order: Sita Ram v. Ram Kishan and others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, August 19, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has recently held that an agreement to sell is not a document of title and the deposition of the neighbours will not bestow a valid title of the ownership on petitioner. 

In this case, an FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner (Sita Ram) alleging therein that he entered into an agreement to sell with the first respondent for a plot, the sale consideration was paid and possession was handed over.

The petitioner raised a construction on the plot by securing loan from the Bank. In 2008, the first respondent executed a sale deed in favour of Sonu and Narinder. The allegations were that he, Om Parkash and Kashmiri using a JCB damaged the construction raised by the petitioner and stole the cooler, chair and table.

The respondents were acquitted in the FIR registered under Sections 147, 148, 420, 448, 427, 506, 379 and 120-B of the IPC, considering that it was not proved that the plot was owned and possessed by Sita Ram (petitioner) and that the agreement to sell did not bestow title of ownership and further it was not a registered document. It was also stated that the execution of agreement to sell was not proved as the subscriber, stamp vender and the Advocate, who had drafted the agreement were not examined. 

Also, it was noted that no document or revenue record was produced showing that the petitioner was in possession of the plot.  Further the petitioner in his cross- examination stated that he had not taken an electric connection for the plot. Lastly, it was noted that the boundary wall was not proved to be demolished. 

The Appellate Court upheld the judgement of acquittal. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court did not consider the evidence of two neighbours who deposed that there was an agreement to sell between the petitioner and Ram Kishan and petitioner was in possession of the plot in dispute. It was further argued that petitioner filed a suit for specific performance which was allowed. However, in appeal decree was modified and alternative relief was granted. 

The Court was informed that the matter was pending before this Court in Regular Second Appeal. The contention was that trial Court did not consider the confessional statement of Kashmiri recorded by the police with regard to the stolen cooler.

After hearing the parties, the Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner was owner and in possession of the plot in dispute. Further, the Court observed that it was rightly held that agreement to sell was not a document of title. 

The deposition of the neighbours will not bestow a valid title of the ownership on petitioner and that the filing of the suit for specific performance only showed that no registered sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. During the course of arguments it was not pointed out that finding was recorded in proceedings for specific performance that the petitioner was in possession of the land.

The Bench placed relinace on a Supreme Court wherein it was held that the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C., 1973 was limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. And, that the revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court.

In light of the above, the Court opined that no case for interference was made out.