The original case revolves around a registered agreement for sale of agricultural land dated July 13, 1992, between the mother of the Defendants and the original Plaintiff. The agreement was made after the Defendants' mother had agreed orally in 1988 to sell the lands to the Plaintiff. Over the years, some payments were made, but the sale deed was never executed, primarily due to the legal complexities surrounding the transfer of ownership under tenancy laws.

Despite receiving partial payments for the land, the Defendants’ mother passed away without completing the sale process, and the title of the land was later mutated in the names of the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs filed a civil suit (Reg. Civil Suit No. 53/2014) seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the Defendants from interfering with their possession of the land. The Defendants, on the other hand, argued that the Plaintiffs’ claim was based solely on an unexecuted sale agreement, which did not confer legal ownership or the right to seek such an injunction.

The Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Shetye, argued that the suit for injunction was not maintainable because the Plaintiffs did not have legal ownership of the land. According to the Defendants, the original Plaintiff had never completed the sale by executing a formal sale deed. Moreover, they contended that the agreement for sale, though registered, was not enforceable in the absence of full payment and the formal registration of the sale deed. They pointed out that the Plaintiff had not taken steps to seek specific performance of the agreement or to compel the Defendants to honor the sale.

Mr. Shetye also argued that the land in question was protected under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (now Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948), which required specific permissions for the sale of tenancy lands. Without such permission, any sale agreement would be illegal, rendering the Plaintiff's claim void.

The Defendants’ legal representatives further highlighted that, despite the agreement for sale, the Plaintiff had failed to take formal steps such as filing for mutation or taking legal action within the prescribed time limits, making the current suit for injunction an attempt to bypass the law of limitation.

In contrast, the Plaintiffs’ advocate, Mr. Kamble, asserted that the agreement for sale dated 13.07.1992 was a registered document and constituted a valid basis for the Plaintiffs’ claim of possession. He emphasized that under the agreement, possession of the suit land was handed over to the original Plaintiff by the Defendants' mother. The Plaintiff had paid part of the agreed-upon consideration, and the agreement explicitly mentioned that possession would pass on execution of the sale deed.

Mr. Kamble argued that the Defendants could not deny the fact that the Plaintiff had possession of the land, as evidenced by the terms of the registered agreement. He further contended that even if the sale deed was not executed, the Plaintiff could still seek protection of possession through a suit for injunction based on the registered agreement.

He also referenced the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which protects a transferee who is in possession of property under an unregistered sale agreement, where the sale agreement is executed but the formal transfer process remains incomplete.

The Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the Defendants' refusal to complete the sale and their attempts to disrupt the Plaintiff’s possession justified the filing of the suit. According to Mr. Kamble, the Defendants’ actions had caused ongoing disturbance, necessitating the filing of the injunction suit to protect the Plaintiffs’ possession.

After considering both parties’ arguments and reviewing the documentary evidence, the court found that the Plaintiffs had made a prima facie case for the injunction. The registered agreement for sale clearly mentioned that possession of the suit land had been handed over to the Plaintiff, which created a valid cause of action for seeking protection of possession.

The court also noted that the Defendants’ argument regarding the necessity of a formal sale deed to establish ownership was not decisive in this case. The registered agreement for sale itself was sufficient to establish the Plaintiff’s possession and claim to the land. In line with established legal precedents, including the Full Bench decision in Sadashiv Chander Bhamgare Vs. Eknath Pandharinath Nangude (AIR 2004 Bombay 378), the court recognized that a prospective buyer in possession under a registered agreement could file a suit for injunction, even if a specific performance suit would be barred by the limitation period.

Thus, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the Defendants’ application for rejection of the plaint, as triable issues had been raised regarding the Plaintiff’s possession and entitlement to seek protection of that possession. The court further directed the trial court to expedite the resolution of the case, setting a six-month deadline for its disposal.

This case highlights the importance of the legal principle of protecting possession, particularly when supported by a registered agreement for sale. It also underscores that the mere absence of a formal sale deed does not necessarily invalidate a party’s claim to possessory rights, especially in cases where an agreement has been acted upon. The court’s decision reflects an approach that seeks to ensure that genuine claims of possession are heard and adjudicated, even in complex property disputes involving unexecuted agreements.

A registered agreement for sale can provide a valid basis for seeking an injunction, even if the sale deed has not been executed.

Possession, once transferred under a valid agreement, can be legally protected through an injunction.

The court emphasized that the law protects possessory rights, especially in cases where the legal process for finalizing a sale is delayed or incomplete.

This case illustrates the application of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which safeguards the rights of those in possession under an unregistered sale agreement.