[2026:RJ-JP:11433] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5214/2025 Baba R.N. Gaur Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd Jaipur, Registration No 59/lc, Address A-11, Tulsi Nagar, Tonk Road Jaipur Through Authorised Signatory/ Representative Shri Kailash Chand Saini S/o Narayan Sahai Saini, R/o Near Purani Tehsil- Jamwaramgarh, District- Jaipur 303109 ----Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus 1. Surajpole Gate Vikas Samiti Ltd., Registration No. 2235/L, through President- Mr. Praveen Mainawat Situated At Surya Nagar, Taron Ki Koot, Sanganer, Jaipur. 2. Kailash Chand Jarwal S/o Shri Gangadhar, R/o B-1, Jaikishan Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. 3. Ramphool Gurjar S/o Sualal Gurjar, R/o Neemdia Ki Dhani, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur 4. Arbitrator - Sub Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Jaipur City, Jaipur Defendant/Respondent………. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwas Sukla For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 18/03/2026 1. By filing the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff/petitioner (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the petitioner’) has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal, Jaipur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in appeal No.69/2022 (C.I.S. NO.69/2022) and to uphold the [2026:RJ-JP:11433] (2 of 9) [CW-5214/2025] order/judgment dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned Arbitrator/Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner filed a petition before the Arbitrator/Sub-Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jaipur, under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001), for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that the petitioner society, through an agreement to sale dated 15.01.1997, purchased a piece of agricultural land i.e. 1/4th part of Khasra No.666 Rakba 11 Bigha 14 Biswa through office bearer/ co- ordinator, Smt. Suman Devi, from its khatedar namely; Mahadev, Girdhari and Babulal, all sons of Ramu. It has also been pleaded that the houses and shops were developed by the petitioner society. It was further pleaded that 1/12 of the part of Khasra No.666 Rakba 11 Bigha 14 Biswa was sold to Shri Gopal Lal and Shri Gopal Lal on 20.12.2006, who appointed one Mr. Kailash Chand Saini, as his power of attorney holder for developing the scheme. 3. The learned Arbitrator vide order dated 17.05.2022 allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and passed the arbitral award. 4. The defendant/respondent No.3, Ramphool Gurjar, aggrieved with the impugned arbitral award, preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 13.12.2023. 5. Mr. Vishwas Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has committed [2026:RJ-JP:11433] (3 of 9) [CW-5214/2025] gross illegality in overlooking the material fact available on record. The learned counsel further submits the sale agreement produced is also not a registered document and the same has been created in the back date. The learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal has committed gross illegality while ignoring the material fact on record that none of the buyers was called to verify the signatures made on the agreement either by Mr. Gopal, Tarachand, Gulab Chand, but still declared the agreement as sustainable in the eye of law without any cogent reason. The learned counsel also submits that although the sale agreement is not registered, but still the petitioner society issued allotment letters. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal may be quashed and set aside. 6. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the entire material made available to the Court, including the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The petitioner is claiming the right over the land in question on the basis of an unregistered sale agreement for which he has never preferred any suit for specific performance. In the case of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Suresh Chand and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1879, a question arose before the Hon’ble Apex Court ‘Whether the impugned document i.e. agreement to sale would confer a valid title over the suit property or not?, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:11433] (4 of 9) [CW-5214/2025] “Agreement of Sale 12. The Transfer of immovable property inter vivos is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “the TP Act”). Section 5 of the said TP Act defines “transfer of property” as follows: “5. ‘Transfer of property’ defined. —In the following sections ‘transfer of property’ means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself or to himself and one or more other living persons and ‘to transfer property’ is to perform such act.” 13. The TP Act envisages five different modes for transferring a property but for the purpose of the present appeal we are only concerned with one of the modes i.e., by way of “Sale” and the same is dealt under section 54 of the TP Act which defines “sale” and a “contract for sale” as follows: “54. ‘Sale’ defined. — ‘Sale’ is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. —Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such [2026:RJ-JP:11433] (5 of 9) [CW-5214/2025] transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale. —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.” 14. Perusal of above said provisions lays down a specific mode of execution of sale deed with respect to immovable property for concluding the sale of a property. In sale for an immovable property the value of which exceeds Rs. 100/-, the three requirements of law are that the transfer of property of sale must take place through a validly executed sale deed, i.e., it must be in writing, properly attested and registered. Unless the sale deed is in writing, attested and registered, the transaction cannot be construed as sale, or in other words, the property will not be transferred. 15. There is a difference between a sale deed and an agreement for sale, or a contract for sale. A contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. While a sale is a transfer of ownership; a contract for sale is merely a document creating a right to obtain another document, namely a registered sale deed to complete [2026:RJ-JP:11433] (6 of 9) [CW-5214/2025] the transaction of sale of an immovable property. Section 54 in its definition of sale does not include an agreement of sale and neither confers any proprietary rights in favour of the transferee nor by itself create any interest or charge in the property. If after entering into a contract for sale of property, the seller without any reasonable excuse avoids executing a sale deed, the buyer can proceed to file a suit for specific performance of the contract. 16. The scope of an agreement for sale has been highlighted by this court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director v. State of Haryana, wherein this Court observed that: “16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam, [(1977) 3 SCC 247] observed: “32. A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra, [AIR 1967 SC 744]). The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein. [2026:RJ-JP:11433] (7 of 9) [CW-5214/2025] 33. In India, the word ‘transfer’ is defined with reference to the word ‘convey’. … The word ‘conveys’ in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership. *** 37. … that only on execution of conveyance, ownership passes from one party to another….” 17. In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, [(2004) 8 SCC 614] this Court held: “10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It disentitles the transferor from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed into service against a third party.” 18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. 19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of [2026:RJ-JP:11433] (8 of 9) [CW-5214/2025] sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject- matter.” 17. In the instant matter, undisputedly plaintiff claims that there is only an agreement to sell, and there is no sale deed executed in his favour by the father. As per the settled position of law, this document does not confer a valid title on the plaintiff as it is not a deed of conveyance as per Section 54 of the TP Act. At best, it only enables the plaintiff to seek for specific performance for the execution of a sale deed and does not create an interest or charge on the suit property.” 8. During the course of arguments it has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel appearing for the petitioner himself that a suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner- Society for the land in question, however, the same was dismissed in the year 2020. As a settled proposition of law no agreement to sale creates any right over the property. [2026:RJ-JP:11433] (9 of 9) [CW-5214/2025] 9. In view of the settled position as regards the agreement to sale which is the sole basis of claim over the land in question by the petitioner and the fact that the suit for declaration filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed long back and no any suit for specific performance has been filed by the petitioner for performance of the unregistered sale agreement, the Court finds no error in the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHARMA N.K. Dy. Registrar/16