HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 973 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Hapur in Original Civil Suit No. 118 of 2025 is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that he has filed Suit No. 187 of 2025 against the defendant/respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2. He seeks relief for specific performance of the contract that the sale deed be executed in pursuance of the registered agreement to sell dated 03.10.2022, after receipt of the balance consideration of Rs. 64,22,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Four Lakhs Twenty-Two Thousand only). In the alternative, it is prayed that the defendant/respondents be directed to refund the part sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only), along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and other expenses. He has also sought a further relief that the defendants be restrained from transferring the land in dispute or creating any third-party rights in favour of any other person. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the execution of the agreement to sell and the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2/respondent no. 2, as well as in favour of his wife, is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, being governed by the principle of lis pendens. He has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is neither legal nor justifiable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, it is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gulab Chandra Tiwari, Santosh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ravindra .....Appellant(s) Charu Aprail Private Limited And Antother .....Respondent(s) 5. As per the facts of the present case, defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1 executed a registered agreement to sell his land, i.e., Khata No. 129, comprising Khasra No. 373 (area 0.1260 hectare), Khasra No. 380-Ka (area 0.1490 hectare), Khasra No. 382 (area 0.0250 hectare), Khasra No. 383 (area 0.2400 hectare), Khasra No. 411-Kha (area 0.0510 hectare), Khasra No. 412- Kha (area 0.0460 hectare), and Khasra No. 417 (area 0.0820 hectare), totaling seven khasra numbers with an aggregate area of 0.7190 hectare. He also agreed to sell land of Khata No. 127, Khasra No. 368, having a total area of 0.3730 hectare, out of which, area 0.1865 hectare was agreed to be sold. Thus, the total area agreed to be sold under the aforesaid khasra numbers comes to 0.9055 hectare in favour of the appellant/plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 84,22,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Four Lakhs Twenty- Two Thousand only). 6. Thereafter, defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1 received a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) from the plaintiff/appellant by way of two cheques of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) each, vide cheque nos. 558915 and 558916 drawn on Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Branch Dhaulana. It was agreed at the time of execution of the said agreement to sell that the remaining amount would be paid to defendant no. 1 at the time of execution of the sale deed. 7. The period for performance of the said agreement to sell was up to 02.03.2023. During this period, defendant no. 1 also executed a registered agreement to sell dated 03.10.2022, registered in Book No. 1, Volume 5493, pages 309–320, Document No. 12100, before the Sub-Registrar, Dhaulana. 8. In respect of the cheques received from the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 directed the plaintiff to transfer the amount mentioned in the cheques into his account by way of RTGS, and assured that he would not present the said cheques for encashment before the bank. 9. Accordingly, the appellant/plaintiff transferred a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) into the account of defendant no. 1 vide UTR No. ZSBLH22288000003 dated 15.10.2022. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has further submitted that, at the time of execution of the said agreement to sell, there was an endorsement regarding attachment mentioned in respect of the said land. Defendant no. 1 informed the plaintiff that the said endorsement had been made erroneously. FAFO No. 973 of 2026 2 11. Accordingly, in Clause 5 of the agreement to sell dated 03.10.2022, it was clearly stipulated that “no prior agreement or sale deed in respect of the said property had been executed before the aforesaid agreement, and that the sale deed would be executed only after the cancellation of the order recorded in the Khatauni of the said land.” 12. Defendant no. 1 was fully aware of this condition. The plaintiff repeatedly requested defendant no. 1 to have the wrongly recorded order cancelled and to execute the sale deed in his favour upon payment of the balance consideration. However, defendant no. 1 neither provided any clear response nor took steps to have the said order cancelled, and continued to delay the matter on one pretext or another, as a result of which a period of about two years elapsed. Defendant no. 1 further instructed the plaintiff that the date mentioned for execution of the sale deed in the agreement would remain unchanged, i.e., 02.03.2023, but he would neither be able to get the wrongly recorded order cancelled nor execute the sale deed on that date. He, therefore, advised the plaintiff not to appear before the office of the Sub- Registrar, Dhaulana on the scheduled date of 02.03.2023, and assured that he would inform the plaintiff by registered post regarding the execution of the sale deed. For this reason, the plaintiff did not appear before the Sub- Registrar’s office, Dhaulana on 02.03.2023. 13. Thereafter, on 15.04.2025, the plaintiff sent a notice to defendant no. 1 by registered post stating that he was no longer willing to wait and fixed 30.04.2025 for execution of the sale deed. It was stated that on the said date, the plaintiff would carry the balance consideration along with other expenses and present himself before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dhaulana, where he would wait from morning till evening for execution of the sale deed. 14. In the meantime, the plaintiff came to know that, despite the subsisting agreement in his favour, the defendants, in collusion with each other, executed separate agreements for sale of portions of the land in dispute, namely, Khasra Nos. 373, 380, 382, and 383 (four plots), and further Khasra Nos. 417, 411-Kha, 412-Kha, 411-Ka, and 412-Ka, in favour of defendant no. 2. 15. After receiving the said information, the plaintiff applied for a certified copy of the agreement to sell and came to know about the execution of agreements to sell in favour of defendant no. 2 and his wife. The plaintiff has FAFO No. 973 of 2026 3 submitted that, at the time of execution of the said agreements in favour of defendant no. 2 and his wife, the agreement to sell in his favour was still subsisting. Hence, defendant no. 1 had no legal authority to execute any agreement to sell or sale deed in respect of the said land in favour of any third party, as the same is hit by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 executed two sale deeds in favour of defendant no. 2 and his wife and also delivered possession of the property. 16. It is an undisputed fact that the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff/appellant was valid only up to 02.03.2023. Prior to the said date, there was no documentary correspondence between the parties, nor was any initiative taken by the plaintiff/appellant to demonstrate that he was ready and willing to have the sale deed executed in his favour and to pay the balance sale consideration. 17. The learned Tribunal has specifically held, on the basis of the evidence produced by defendant no. 1, that no amount was paid pursuant to the agreement to sell, despite such payment being mentioned therein, and that the two cheques in question were dishonoured. It has further been held that the transfer of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no. 1 pertained to another transaction which took place on the same date, namely, a sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The period for execution of the sale deed was up to 02.03.2023. 18. Section 53A- Transfer of Property Act 1882, is quoted hereibelow: "[53A. Part performance.-- Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing FAFO No. 973 of 2026 4 against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.]" 19. The prima facie period of limitation of the said agreement to sell expired on 02.03.2023. During this period, no documentary evidence was filed by the plaintiff/appellant to demonstrate his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration or to press for execution of the sale deed by defendant no. 1/seller. 20. In view thereof, no prima facie case is made out for granting any interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 21. The impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned trial court is neither illegal nor perverse and is liable to be upheld. It is upheld accordingly. 22. The present appeal is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. April 21, 2026 K.K. Maurya FAFO No. 973 of 2026 5 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad