Supreme Court of India· 13 August 2026

What does Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act require of an agreement to sell executed after 24.09.2001 before it can support a claim of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act?

NAZIM SHAIKH HASAN v. NASIR MUSHTAQ SHAIKH

2026 INSC 853 · SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.17699 OF 2026
Coram: Prashant Kumar Mishra; N.V. Anjaria

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Transfer of Property Act, 1882 —…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Such an agreement must be registered; if it is not, Section 17(1A) expressly denies it any effect for the purposes of Section 53A, foreclosing the transferee's plea of part performance regardless of possession or payment.

Headnote

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.111(e), s.111(f), s.53A, s.54 — Registration Act, 1908 — s.17(1A) — Surrender of tenancy — Agreement to sell — Part performance — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.111(e)(f) — Surrender — Mere agreement to sell insufficient — Held: The mere execution of an agreement to sell between a landlord and tenant, even on part payment, does not ipso facto determine the tenancy. Determination requires an express or implied surrender under Section 111(e) or (f) of the Transfer of Property Act. (¶20, 21) Surrender — Terms of the agreement — Reversion of possession negatives surrender — Held further: Surrender must appear from the agreement's own terms or conduct inconsistent with continuing tenancy — as in R. Kanthimathi, where possession was expressly acknowledged as already surrendered. The present agreement instead provided for reversion of possession "as it was" if the loan fell through, negativing any surrender. (¶12, 22) Section 53A — Part performance — Possession must be referable to the agreement — Held further: Continuous possession as a tenant after an agreement to sell is not part performance under Section 53A unless referable to the agreement rather than the antecedent tenancy. Having entered as a tenant, the petitioner could not show his possession had become that of a transferee. (¶18, 24) Registration Act, 1908 — s.17(1A) — Unregistered agreement — No s.53A protection — Held further: An unregistered agreement to sell executed after the 2001 amendment to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act has no effect for the purposes of Section 53A. The petitioner could not invoke that protection, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. (¶25, 29)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 25Even assuming arguendo that the factual requirements for invoking Section 53A stood satisfied, the petitioner/defendant's plea is independently foreclosed by the statutory mandate contained in Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908[^9]. Section 17 of the Registration Act was amended with effect from 24.09.2001 by the introduction of sub-section (1A) therein, which provides that documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of the TP Act shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, and if such documents are not so registered, they shall have no effect for the purposes of Section 53A. The agreement to sell in the present case was executed on 21.09.2004, i.e., well after the coming into force of the said amendment. The agreement to sell, being admittedly unregistered, can have no effect for the purposes of Section 53A by virtue of the express mandate of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, as reaffirmed by this Court in Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Others[^10]. The petitioner/defendant is, therefore, disentitled from claiming the protection of Section 53A on this ground as well. The High Court was thus entirely correct in holding that the benefit of Section 53A is unavailable to the petitioner/defendant.

Acts & Sections

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.111(e)Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.111(f)Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.53ATransfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.54Registration Act, 1908 — s.17(1A)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of NAZIM SHAIKH HASAN v. NASIR MUSHTAQ SHAIKH — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does the mere execution of an agreement to sell by a landlord in favour of a sitting tenant, on payment of part consideration, by itself put an end to the tenancy?What must the agreement to sell itself show for a court to infer that the landlord intended to surrender the tenancy, as distinguished from R. Kanthimathi?What distinguishes implied surrender under Section 111(f) of the Transfer of Property Act from surrender by express agreement under Section 111(e)?When does a tenant's continued possession after entering into an agreement to sell qualify as part performance protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections