Agreement To Sell Does Not Confer Any Absolute Title Upon Proposed Vendee Over The Property In Question: Punjab & Haryana HC

Finding that petitioners were not owners of the subject immoveable property, at the time of filing of their nomination papers and concerned affidavits, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to accept that title in property was conveyed to the petitioners based on agreement to sell, which is an unregistered document.

The High Court further stated that the State has failed to prove that the information given by the petitioners in their affidavits was incomplete or that material information about their assets was not disclosed by the petitioners while filing their nomination papers.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Karamjit Singh observed that “An agreement to sell is neither a document of title nor a deed of transfer of property by sale. It does not confer any absolute title upon the proposed vendee over the property in question in view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act”.

Advocate T.S. Grewal appeared for the Petitioner, whereas DAG Naveen Kumar Sheoran appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that an FIR was registered against both the petitioners based on a complaint lodged by Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahendergarh, wherein it was alleged that first petitioner filed her nomination papers for election of Municipal Councilor, and second petitioner filed his nomination papers for election of Municipal Councilor of Municipal Committee. Both the petitioners did not disclose about property owned by them in the said affidavits. So, the petitioners gave false affidavits along with their nomination papers with mala fide intention and thus, committed offences under Sections 199 and 420 IPC and Sections 13-D and 125-A of Representation of the People Act.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that the agreement is an unregistered document and the same is relating to some portion of property of old Ram Leela ground Mahendergarh.

“Even if the entire sale consideration worth Rs.56,00,000/- was paid by the first petitioner to the proposed vendors, at the time of execution of said agreement, it cannot be termed as a sale transaction, as per the provision of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act which clearly mandates that the title in immoveable property valued at more than Rs.100/- shall be conveyed only by executing a registered sale deed”, added the Bench.

The Bench elaborated that the prosecution has also prima facie failed to show that there was any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioners, when they filed their nomination papers along with the concerned affidavits.

Accordingly, observing that both the petitioners were elected as Municipal Councilors, the High Court concluded that in case the candidates who lost the election or any other interested persons were not satisfied with the result of the elections, they were having efficacious remedy to file election petition(s) to challenge the elections of both the petitioners under Section 75 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules 1978.

Cause Title: Reena Devi and Anr. v. State of Haryana

Click here to read/download the Order