BACKGROUND:

Aman Singh, a resident of Delhi, is the absolute owner of a residential property located in Vasant
Kunj, Delhi. The 500-square-yard plot was inherited by Aman from his late father, Rajesh Singh,
through a registered will in 2010. The current market value of the property is ₹5 crores.

FACTS

In January 2022, Aman Singh, facing financial difficulties, decided to sell his property. Devansh
Gupta, a Mumbai-based businessman, expressed interest, and after negotiations, they agreed on a
sale price of ₹4.5 crores.

On February 1, 2022, Aman and Devansh signed a written agreement to sell the property at this
price. Devansh paid an advance of ₹1 crore, with the balance ₹3.5 crores to be paid at the time of
executing the sale deed. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed would be executed and
registered by April 30, 2022. Devansh was given possession of the property immediately after
paying the advance and invested ₹25 lakhs in renovations.

In March 2022, Aman received a higher offer of ₹5.5 crores from Priya Verma, a wealthy
entrepreneur. Feeling strapped, Aman accepted this offer and sold the property to Priya without
informing Devansh. On April 10, 2022, Aman executed and registered a sale deed in Priya’s
favour. Priya, unaware of the prior agreement with Devansh, took possession of the property
with the help of local authorities.

On April 12, 2022, when Devansh returned from a business trip, he found Priya residing in the
property. Devansh contacted Aman, who refused to return the advance or acknowledge the
agreement by stating his financial position and anticipatory breach of contract. Consequently,
Devansh filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking specific performance of the agreement,
possession of the property, and damages for the renovations.

Priya Verma, in her defence, claimed that she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice
of the prior agreement and that her registered sale deed gave her a superior right to the property.

Consequently, Aman Singh filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, seeking
to quash the Delhi High Court's order. The appellant contended that the said order was tainted by
ulterior motives, constituted a manifest injustice, and was based on a fraudulent
misrepresentation of the facts with intent to deceive and mislead.

IMPORTANT DATES & EVENTS

2010- Aman Singh inherited the property from his late father, Rajesh Singh.
January 2022- Devansh Gupta expressed his interest in purchasing Aman’s property for 4.5
Crores
01.02.2022- Aman and Devansh entered into a written agreement to sell the property.
30.04.2022- The written agreement between Aman and Devansh stipulated that the sale deed
would be executed and registered by April 30, 2022.
March 2022- Aman received a higher offer of ₹5.5 crores from Priya Verma
10.04.2022- Aman executed and registered a sale deed in Priya’s favour.
12.04. 2022- Upon returning from a business trip, Devansh discovered that Priya was living in
the property he had already paid an advance for and renovated.

ISSUES
1. Is registration compulsory for immovable property under the Registration Act, of 1908?
2. Whether Devansh Gupta is entitled to any compensation for the renovations made to the
property?
3. Can Devansh Gupta seek help under the Specific performance of the contract?
4. Who has the better right to property- Devansh Gupta or Priya Verma?
 1. Is registration compulsory for immovable property under the Registration Act, of
1908?
Section 17 of the Registration Act mandates the registration of documents such as sale deeds, gift
deeds, mortgages, leases, and other instruments that create, transfer, or extinguish rights in
immovable property. A few significant sub-clauses of Section 17 are,
A. Documents that create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in
immovable property worth ₹100 or more.
B. Non-testamentary instruments that acknowledge the receipt or payment of consideration
for the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation, or extinction of any right, title, or
interest in immovable property.
C. Leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or
reserving a yearly rent.
D. Non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a court
involving immovable property.
The object and purpose of the Registration Act, amongst other things, is to provide a method of
public registration of documents to give information to people regarding legal rights and
obligations arising or affecting a particular property, and to perpetuate documents which may
afterwards be of legal importance, and also to prevent fraud. Registration lends inviolability and
importance to certain classes of documents.1 It is well settled that an instrument which creates a
right or interest in the rents, profits, benefits and income from immovable property, is a
compulsorily registrable document.2 Section 17 (1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act,
1908, particularly, the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, in my considered view,
leaves no doubt or ambiguity that, though, a contract accompanied by delivery of possession or
execution in favour of a person in possession, is compulsory registerable under Section 17 (1A)
of the Registration Act, 1908, but, the failure to register such a contract would only deprive a
person in possession of any benefit conferred by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882.3 In addition, the Hon’ble court stated that a suit for specific performance of contract based
upon an unregistered agreement to sale accompanied by delivery of possession or execution in
1
Jogi Das v. Fakir Panda A.I.R. 1970 Orissa. 22
2
Corporation Bank v. Laalitha H. Halla A.I.R. 1994 Karn. 133
3
Sri Pradip Paul vs Smt. Ila Saha, AIR 2021 TRIPURA 1
favour of a person who is already in possession, cannot, therefore be said to be barred by section
17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. The agreement to sell is not a conveyance, and it does not
transfer ownership rights or confer any title. Here the court only permits to consider the
unregistered document (i.e., Agreement to sell) as a piece of evidence, but didn’t state that
agreement to sell exclusively means transfer of title and ownership. The Supreme Court ruled
that a title cannot be transferred through an unregistered Agreement to Sell or General Power of
Attorney. The court emphasized that possession does not confer title, and the legal formalities
must be complied with to ensure the enforceability of rights. 4
Section 17 is a general provision making the agreements of sales compulsorily registrable, but
certain exceptions have been provided under the Act itself. Clause (2) of Section 17 indicates the
nature of documents that are exempted from registration. It is imperative to note that the present
case of agreement to sell doesn’t under the exception as stated under Section 17(2) of the
Registration Act. 5
A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take
place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on
such property.”6 While interpreting this provision, we can understand that just having this
contract does not mean that ownership of the property changes or that there are any claims on it.
In short, it's a promise to sell the property under agreed conditions, but it doesn't transfer
ownership right away.
The unregistered award per se is not inadmissible in evidence. It is a valid award and not a mere
waste paper. It creates rights and obligations between the parties thereto and is conclusive
between the parties. It can be set up as a defence as evidence of resolving the disputes and
acceptance of it by the parties. If it is a foundation, creating right, title and interest in the present
or future or extinguishing the right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100
or above it is compulsorily registerable and non-registration renders it inadmissible in evidence. 7
Specific performance of the contract is not applicable in the present case because Section 10 of

4
R.Suresh Babu vs G.Rajalingam And 2 Others, 2018

5
Javvadi Koteswara Rao v. Sonti Sambasiva Rao, 2004(1)ALD629

6
Section 54 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882
7
Sardar Singh v. Smt. Krishna Devi and another, AIR1991DELHI178
the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states cases in which the specific performance of the contract is
enforceable. This section highlights that

1. when there exists no standard for ascertaining actual damage caused by the
non-performance of the act agreed to be done; or
2. when the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in money for its
non-performance would not afford adequate relief
Explanation
Unless and until the contrary is proved, the court shall presume—
1. that the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately
relieved by compensation in money;
For agreements to sell immovable property, the law presumes that compensation alone is
inadequate relief unless proven otherwise. However, in the present case, we can demonstrate that
the compensation is readily ascertainable. In the current case, we can prove that there is no
monetary transaction between Aman Singh and Devansh except the advance amount, which is 1
crore. Therefore, the maximum compensation that Devansh could claim is limited to this amount.
The grant of specific performance is discretionary and depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case. If the court is satisfied that the compensation is adequate, it may refuse to order
specific performance.
By submitting the above arguments, I humbly request the Hon’ble Court to consider an
unregistered agreement to sell between Aman Singh and Devansh Gupta as inadmissible in court.

1.1 Is the agreement to sell between Aman Singh and Deansh Gupta discharged?
Feeling strapped, Aman Singh decided to refuse the advance and acknowledge the agreement. In
the present case, breach of contract happened not by the act of fraud but by need. While looking
into the circumstances of the case, we can say it is an anticipatory breach of contract. Aman
Singh during the call with Devansh informed his non-interest in the agreement to sell. Section 39
of the Indian Contract Act delineates the essential elements that constitute an anticipatory breach
of contract. Firstly, there must be a valid contract that specifies a future date for performance.
Secondly, one of the parties must either explicitly refuse to fulfil their obligations under the
contract or have willfully created circumstances that render the performance of the promise
inevitable. It is important to note that the performance of the promise should not merely be
unlikely or economically unfeasible; rather, it must have become impossible to execute.
Additionally, such refusal or self-induced impossibility must occur before the actual performance
date outlined in the contract. Lastly, the refusal to perform can be either expressed explicitly or
implied through the conduct of the parties involved. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble
court that the breach of contract happened because of the presence of reasonable reason from the
side of Aman Singh.

2. Whether Devansh Gupta is entitled to any compensation for the renovations made
to the property?
It is most humbly submitted that Devansh Gupta and Aman Singh only had a written agreement
to sell and not a sale deed. It is imperative to mention that the agreement to sell the immovable
property is not registered under the Registration Act. As a part of the agreement to sell, Devansh
was given possession of that immovable property immediately after the payment of the advance
of 1 crore.8 From this, we can say that Devansh only got temporary possession of that property
and not permanent one.
Aman Singh and Devansh entered into an unregistered agreement for the sale of immovable
property, where Devansh made an advance payment of ₹1 crore and was given possession of the
property. However, the sale deed was never executed, and the agreement was not registered as
required by law. Under the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882, an agreement for the sale of
immovable property valued at ₹100 or more must be registered. Since the agreement between
Aman Singh and Devansh was not registered, it is not enforceable in a court of law and Devansh
cannot claim any rights over the property based on this unregistered agreement. Devansh's
possession is contingent on the agreement being executed and registered. Until then, Devansh is
merely a temporary possessor, not the owner. As a person with temporary possession, Devansh
did not have the legal authority to make substantial renovations to the property without Aman
Singh's permission. Devansh can seek compensation for renovations made if it was made with
authorization (consent) from the title holder. But here the renovations made by Devansh would
be considered unauthorized and may be considered an act of trespass, for which Devansh cannot
claim compensation from Aman Singh.

8
Para 3 of Moot Proposition
While Devansh Gupta was granted possession after paying an advance, the sale agreement
remained incomplete as it was contingent on the execution and registration of the sale deed. No
legal title was transferred to Devansh, making his decision to renovate the property voluntary
and based solely on an expectation of ownership. As a result, Aman Singh is not legally
obligated to compensate Devansh for the improvements, as they were made without a formal
transfer of ownership. The principle of caveat emptor places the responsibility on the buyer to
secure their position in any transaction. Devansh should have ensured the sale deed was executed
before making any significant investments. By failing to do so, he acted at his own risk, and
Aman Singh cannot be held responsible for protecting Devansh’s interests or compensating him
for the improvements. The written agreement did not include a clause obligating Aman Singh to
compensate Devansh for any renovations if the sale did not proceed. Without such a clause,
Devansh has no legal claim for compensation, and Aman is under no obligation to reimburse him
for voluntary investments.
Aman lawfully executed and registered a sale deed in favor of Priya Verma, giving her superior
legal title to the property. Priya’s rights as the new owner supersede any claims Devansh might
have under the incomplete agreement.
Aman did not benefit directly from the renovations, as the property was sold to Priya. Any unjust
enrichment claims would need to be directed at Priya, not Aman.
Devansh’s delay in completing the sale contributed to the failure of the transaction, and Aman
should not be held liable for any financial losses incurred.

—--------------------------------

It is respectfully submitted that the relationship between Aman Singh and Devansh Gupta was
governed by a written agreement to sell, not a sale deed. The agreement to sell was unregistered
under the Registration Act and did not meet the legal requirements for the sale of immovable
property. While Devansh paid an advance of ₹1 crore and was given possession of the property,
this possession was temporary and contingent upon the execution and registration of a formal
sale deed.
Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any agreement for the sale of immovable property
valued at ₹100 or more must be registered to be legally enforceable. Since the agreement
between Aman and Devansh was not registered, Devansh cannot claim any legal rights or
ownership over the property. His possession was temporary, and without a registered sale deed,
Devansh’s rights to the property are limited, leaving him without legal grounds to demand
ownership or compensation.

Additionally, as a temporary possessor, Devansh lacked the legal authority to make significant
renovations to the property without express permission from Aman Singh, the legal title holder.
Under normal circumstances, compensation for renovations may be sought if the improvements
were authorized by the owner. In this case, the renovations made by Devansh were unauthorized,
and without the consent of the legal owner, these actions could be construed as an act of trespass.
As a result, Devansh cannot claim compensation from Aman Singh for the improvements made.

The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) applies in this situation, emphasizing that
Devansh should have ensured that the sale deed was executed and registered before investing in
renovations. By proceeding with the improvements without securing his legal position, Devansh
acted at his own risk. Aman Singh cannot be held responsible for compensating Devansh for
improvements undertaken on a property where no legal title had been transferred.

Furthermore, the written agreement between Aman and Devansh did not contain any provision
obligating Aman to compensate Devansh in case the sale did not proceed. Without such a clause,
Devansh lacks a legal basis to claim compensation, and Aman Singh is under no duty to
reimburse him for voluntary investments made under an unregistered and incomplete sale
agreement.

Aman Singh’s legal position is further strengthened by the fact that he lawfully executed and
registered a sale deed in favor of Priya Verma, who now holds superior legal title to the property.
Priya’s rights as the new owner override any claims Devansh may have had under the
unregistered agreement with Aman. Since Priya now possesses full legal title, any disputes
regarding the property should be directed toward her, not Aman.
Lastly, Aman did not benefit directly from the renovations, as the property has been sold to Priya
Verma. Any claims of unjust enrichment would apply to Priya, not Aman. Moreover, Devansh’s
failure to complete the sale by paying the balance and executing the sale deed within the agreed
timeframe contributed to the transaction's failure. Aman should not be held liable for any
financial losses Devansh incurred as a result of his own actions.

3. Can Devansh Gupta seek help under the Specific performance of the contract?
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Devansh has no right to seek help
under the Specific performance of the contract. Aman Singh discharged the agreement to sell
because of the doctrine of frustration, inadequacy of consideration and better options for
financial stability. The defences used by Aman Singh for non-applicability of specific
performance of contract is that Aman Singh is willing to refund the advance amount of 1 crore
and awarding damages is an adequate remedy under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Priya Verma was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement and her
registered sale deed gave her a superior right to the property. That the act of specific performance
would result in injustice to the current title holder (i.e., Priya Verma) and cause a result harsh and
inequitable. olds an unregistered agreement. In cases of competing claims, specific performance
is not automatically granted. Courts have the discretion to decide whether specific performance
is just and equitable under the Specific Relief Act, of 1963. The Supreme Court ruled that
specific performance could be denied if enforcing the contract would be inequitable.9 In this
situation, enforcing Devansh’s unregistered agreement would be unjust, given that Priya Verma
has a registered sale deed and is a bona fide purchaser. If there is no concluded contract, specific
performance shall not be granted.10
An agreement enforceable by law is a contract and here in the present case, the agreement
between Aman Singh and Devansh is not enforceable under Section 10 of the Contracts Act
because currently, the subject matter of the suit is not in the hands of Aman Singh. Priya Verma
is the title holder of the suit property. The agreement to sell between Aman Singh and Devansh
would be considered void, so Aman Singh can't do the specific performance of the contract.

9
Sushila Devi v. Rati Ram Shori, 1971 AIR 1756

10
Trimurthy Constructions V Vijaya Lakshmi AIR 1993 A.P. 95
 4. Who has the better right to property- Devansh Gupta or Priya Verma?
Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, agreements concerning the sale of immovable
property valued at ₹100 or more must be registered to be legally enforceable. As the agreement
between Aman Singh and Devansh Gupta was not registered, it lacks the necessary legal
standing. This omission renders the agreement inadmissible in court as evidence, significantly
weakening Devansh’s claim. The importance of registration in property transactions is a
well-established legal principle, ensuring that title transfers are formal and transparent. The Act
48 of 2001 became effective from 24.1.2001 and by which Act, documents such as an agreement
to sell cannot be looked into for conveying the title of part performance under Section 53A of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 of the property unless the same are duly stamped and
registered.11 Furthermore, possession of the property does not confer ownership. The Supreme
Court reinforced the position that mere possession does not equate to a transfer of title, which
requires proper legal formalities.12 Since Devansh only held possession without a registered sale
deed, his claim to ownership remains legally insufficient. Ownership rights are only transferred
when a sale deed is properly executed and registered. So here in the present case, Priya Verma is
the title holder.
Priya Verma’s position as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. She also took
possession with the assistance of the local authorities. This further strengthens her legal claim. A
bona fide purchaser who buys property without knowledge of any previous claims is entitled to
ownership free of those claims.13 As Priya’s sale deed is registered and there is no evidence she
was aware of Devansh’s prior agreement, her legal title to the property is secure. Registration
also plays a crucial role in property transactions. Priya's registered sale deed, being a valid
transfer of title under the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882, gives her a superior claim over
Devansh, who merely holds an unregistered agreement. Aman Singh’s execution of a registered
sale deed in favour of Priya Verma on 10th April 2022 must also be considered. Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act underscores that the registration of the sale deed is the legal means of
transferring ownership. As the registered owner, Priya has a stronger claim to the property than

11
Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1598 OF 2023
12
Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1598 OF 2023
13
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [2011] 11 S.C.R. 848
Devansh. One of the landmark cases ascertains that registered documents have greater
evidentiary value than unregistered agreements.14
While Devansh might seek specific performance, he cannot compel Aman to sell the property
given that Priya has a registered deed. The Supreme Court noted that specific performance is not
an absolute right but a discretionary remedy.15 Looking at Priya’s legal position as a bona fide
purchaser, it is humbly requested before this Hon’ble court to decline specific performance and
suggest damages as an alternative remedy for Devansh. Lastly, Aman Singh’s decision to sell the
property to Priya for a lower consideration because of his financial need but as a result of Priya
Verma’s offer of higher consideration, Aman Singh decided to opt for a better choice. Under
Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882, a buyer is obliged to complete the sale by
paying the full amount. Here in the present case, Aman Singh has yet to receive the full
consideration amount. So Devansh can’t claim ownership. It is humbly submitted before the
Hon’ble court that Priya Verma has a better right to property because of the registered sale deed
between her and Aman Singh.

14
Ram Niwas v. Bano (2000) 6 SCC 685
15
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733