FAQs on Three Years of Court Practice Judgment   |   Judgment Writing Course – Batch Commences 19th July 2025 | Register Now   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Indore) – Limited Seats | Starts 17th July 2025   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Prayagraj) – Enrol Now for 4th July 2025 Batch   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Mukherjee Nagar) – New Batch Starts 4th July 2025   |   Don’t miss a single update! Join our Telegram channel today for instant legal alerts, PYQs & more.









List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Civil Law

Unregistered Agreements to Sell

 19-Jun-2025

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. 

“In the absence of a suit for specific performance, the agreement to sell cannot be relied upon to claim ownership or to assert any transferable interest in the property.” 

Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan   

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan  held that an unregistered agreement to sell does not create or convey any right, title, or interest in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. ? 

  • The appellant company, Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., claimed ownership of agricultural land comprising Khasra No. 175, 175/2, 175/4, 175/5, 175/6, 175/7 measuring 18 bighas 15 biswas situated in Village Pal, District Jodhpur, which they had purchased in 2013. 
  • In 2014, the appellant company obtained a loan of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- from Respondent No. 1, Mahaveer Lunia. 
  • To secure this loan, the company's Board of Directors passed a resolution on 23rd May 2014, authorising their Managing Director Mr. Vinod Singhvi and their authorised representative Mr. Mahaveer Lunia to sell the subject property. 
  • Pursuant to this board resolution, on 24th May 2014, Mr. Vinod Singhvi executed an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell in favour of Respondent No. 1 concerning the subject property. 
  • On 12th August 2015, the original sale deeds through which the appellant company had purchased the subject property were impounded by the Collector of Stamps for insufficient stamp duty. 
  • The appellant company challenged this action before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which allowed their revision petition and remanded the matter back to the Collector of Stamps. 
  • During this period, the appellant company handed over the original documents pertaining to the suit property to the private respondents as security for the loan. 
  • In April 2022, when the appellant company approached the private respondents to settle the loan and retrieve the original documents, the respondents failed to respond. 
  • On 24th May 2022, the Board of Directors passed a resolution revoking the authority granted to Respondent No. 1, thereby invalidating all related actions and declaring them as non-est. 
  • The power of attorney was also formally revoked on 27th May 2022. 
  • Despite this revocation, Respondent No. 1 proceeded to execute sale deeds dated 13th July 2022 and 14th July 2022, which were registered on 19th July 2022 in his favour and in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the subject property. 
  • Based on these sale deeds, their names were mutated in the revenue records. 
  • Aggrieved by these developments, the appellant company instituted Original Civil Suit No. 122 of 2022 before the District Court, Jodhpur, against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, as well as concerned government authorities and a developer. 
  • The suit sought declaratory relief, possession, and permanent injunction in respect of the subject property. 
  • During the pendency of the suit, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. 
  • This application was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metropolitan, by order dated 14th July 2023. 
  • Challenging this dismissal, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 99 of 2023 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. 
  • The High Court allowed this revision petition by the impugned order dated 31st January 2025, thereby rejecting the plaint. 
  • This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Supreme Court clarified that an agreement to sell does not constitute a conveyance and therefore does not transfer ownership or confer title.  
  • A plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it fails to disclose a cause of action on its face, without considering the defense or merits of the case. 
  • The Court states that unregistered documents do not confer valid authority to transfer title, and such documents are inadmissible under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. 
  • The Court emphasized that the power of attorney was unregistered and had been revoked prior to execution of sale deeds, leaving no valid authority to execute the impugned transactions. 
  • The Court provides that the agreement to sell was effectively a mortgage transaction, with the appellant expressing willingness to repay the loan and redeem the property. 
  • The Court states that issues relating to immovable property title fall exclusively within civil court jurisdiction, not revenue authorities, as revenue entries are merely administrative. 
  • The Court observed that the High Court erred in treating the second cause of action as "academic" and rejecting the entire plaint without proper examination. 
  • Section 23 of the Registration Act mandates registration within four months, which was not fulfilled for documents executed in 2014. 
  • The Court states that the trial court correctly held the issues were triable, while the High Court improperly overturned this finding. 

What is an Unregistered Agreement to Sell? 

An unregistered agreement to sell is a contract document that: 

  • Purports to create rights in immovable property valued at ₹100 or more 
  • Should have been registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 
  • Remains legally ineffective for transferring title due to non-registration 

Legal Consequences Under Section 49 

According to Section 49 of the Registration Act, unregistered documents required to be registered: 

  • Cannot affect immovable property comprised in the document 
  • Cannot confer any power related to the property 
  • Cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property 

Limited Exceptions (Proviso to Section 49) 

Unregistered agreements to sell may only be admitted as evidence for: 

  • Specific performance suits - as evidence of a contract in suits seeking to enforce the agreement 
  • Collateral transactions - for purposes not directly related to transferring property rights 

Key Cases Referenced: 

  • S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram (2010) 5 SCC 401 - Established that unregistered documents required to be registered cannot affect immovable property or be received as evidence of transactions affecting such property, except for collateral purposes or in suits for specific performance. 
  • Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 - Definitively held that unregistered agreements to sell, even with possession, do not convey title or create interest in immovable property, and that only registered sale deeds can effectuate transfer of immovable property.

Constitutional Law

State Seems to Be Reintroducing Struck Down OBC Quotas: Prima Facie

 19-Jun-2025

Amal Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 

“Prima facie, the respondents are hastily reintroducing struck-down reservations via executive orders, bypassing legislative process and prior court scrutiny.” 

Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty

Source:  Calcutta High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Tapabrata Chakraborty stayed the West Bengal government's move to prepare a new OBC list, observing it prima facie reintroduced previously quashed classes and quotas through executive action in violation of prior judicial orders.  

  • The Calcutta High Court held this in the matter of Amal Chandra Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Amal Chandra Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.? 

  • The dispute originated from a batch of Public Interest Litigations challenging the identification and classification of 77 classes as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in West Bengal, which were disposed of by a judgment dated 22nd May, 2024. 
  • The West Bengal government had approached the Supreme Court against this order through a Special Leave Petition, informing the apex court that a fresh commission had been instituted for OBC classification. 
  • In May 2024, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court had cancelled all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010, with the Supreme Court observing that reservation cannot be granted on the basis of religion while questioning the state's classification system. 
  • Following the 2024 judgment, the state government had categorically stated that all appointments would be stopped or deferred until the Supreme Court's decision on their appeal. 
  • However, fresh writ petitions were filed challenging various notifications and a benchmark survey conducted by the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes through memos dated 28th February and 1st March, 2025. 
  • The state government proceeded to issue multiple notifications between May and June 2025, sub-categorizing backward classes into OBC-A and OBC-B categories. 
  • These notifications increased OBC reservation percentage to 17% (10% for OBC-A and 7% for OBC-B) and included additional classes in the state list. 
  • The petitioners alleged that these executive actions were taken in violation of the earlier court judgment and without proper legislative approval. 
  • The controversy intensified when the state issued further notifications in June 2025, including new procedures for OBC certificate issuance, despite ongoing legal proceedings.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The court observed that the respondents appeared to be proceeding in "hot haste" and attempting to reintroduce the same classes and percentage of reservations that had been previously struck down by the division bench and upheld by the Supreme Court. 
  • The judges noted that the state was trying to bring back these classifications through executive orders rather than in exercise of the state's legislative functions, and this was being done before the court could scrutinise the steps taken by the Commission. 
  • The court emphasized that the state ought to have placed the reports and bills before the Legislature for amendment and introduction of classes in the Schedule of the 2012 Act, rather than issuing executive notifications. 
  • It was observed that the executive notifications were in direct conflict with the earlier judgment and had not been issued under the provisions of the 2012 Act. 
  • The court noted that it had previously struck down Section 16 of the 2012 Act, which empowered the State Executive to amend schedules, and had consequently struck down 37 classes included through executive exercise of this section. 
  • The judges observed that they had also struck down Section 5(a) of the 2012 Act, which distributed reservation percentages of 10% and 7% to sub-classified classes. 
  • The court clarified that while it had not interfered with executive orders classifying 66 classes prior to 2010, and since this aspect had not been interfered with by the Supreme Court, there should be no hindrance in conducting recruitment and admission processes considering these pre-2010 OBC classes. 
  • Consequently, the court stayed all the contested notifications and related consequential steps until the end of July 2025 or until further orders, whichever was earlier. 

What is Article 16 of the Constitution? 

  • Article 16(4) empowers the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 
  • The term "backward class" in Article 16(4) includes Other Backward Classes (OBCs) along with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as established through judicial interpretation. 
  • In the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1993) case, the Supreme Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs in central government services, recognising caste as an acceptable indicator of backwardness. 
  • The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney established that reservations under Article 16(4) are restricted to initial appointments and cannot extend to promotions for OBCs, unlike SCs and STs. 
  • The Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) case held that caste cannot be the sole determining criteria for gauging backwardness of a community, and factors like poverty or place of residence should also be considered. 
  • The concept of "creamy layer" exclusion applies to OBCs, meaning the more affluent sections within OBC communities are excluded from reservation benefits. 
  • Article 16(4B) allows unfilled reserved vacancies from one year to be treated as separate class of vacancies in succeeding years, which applies to OBC reservations along with SC/ST reservations. 
  • The 50% ceiling on total reservations established in Indra Sawhney applies to OBC reservations, though this limit is not rigid and may be exceeded in exceptional circumstances.