She won possession for 16 years. The Supreme Court took it back in one judgment.

Two Shots, One Agreement, and the Suit That Went Too Far

When Kelo Devi walked into a civil court in 1997, she was not asking for the property itself. She was asking for something smaller: an order telling Balram Singh to stop disturbing her possession. The problem was the foundation she built that request on — an agreement to sell written on a ten-rupee stamp paper, never registered, and dated 1996. The Supreme Court of India, in a crisp judgment delivered on 23 September 2022, tore that foundation apart. The stakes were simple. Kelo Devi had been in possession for over two decades. Balram Singh wanted his land back. And the Court had to decide whether a cleverly drafted suit for injunction could do what the law said an unregistered agreement could not.

The Agreement That Wasn't Quite an Agreement

The story begins in 1996. Kelo Devi claimed she had entered into an agreement with Balram Singh to buy a piece of property for Rs. 14,000. She said she was put in possession. But the document was written on a ten-rupee stamp paper. It was never registered. Under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, an agreement to sell that conveys a right to immovable property must be registered. Section 49 of the same Act makes the consequence clear: an unregistered document cannot be used to affect the property it describes. It cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property.

Kelo Devi did not file a suit for specific performance — the legal remedy that would have asked the court to force Balram Singh to complete the sale. That would have required her to prove the agreement was valid and that she was ready and willing to perform her part. Instead, she filed a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter. She asked the court to restrain Balram Singh from disturbing her possession. No mention of enforcing the sale. Just the injunction.

Balram Singh fought back. He filed a counter-claim, asking the court to order Kelo Devi to hand over possession of the property to him.

What the Trial Court Saw

The Civil Court in Original Suit No. 696 of 1997 heard the evidence. The trial judge was not impressed. Kelo Devi could not prove the agreement to sell. She could not prove that she was in lawful possession. The court dismissed her suit and allowed Balram Singh's counter-claim. The property, the court said, belonged to Balram Singh. Kelo Devi had to give it back.

That should have been the end. But Kelo Devi appealed.

The First Appellate Court Reverses

The District Court, hearing the appeal, took a different view. On 29 January 2001, the first appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment. It decreed the suit for permanent injunction. It dismissed Balram Singh's counter-claim. The court believed Kelo Devi's story: she had an agreement, she was in possession, and she deserved protection.

Balram Singh went to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In Second Appeal No. 330 of 2001, he argued that the first appellate court had misread the law. The High Court disagreed. On 10 December 2019, it dismissed the second appeal. The injunction stood. Kelo Devi kept the property.

Sixteen years after the trial court's decree, the High Court had confirmed the reversal. Balram Singh had one last stop: the Supreme Court of India.

The Argument That Changed Everything

Before the Supreme Court, Balram Singh's counsel made a simple point. Kelo Devi's suit for permanent injunction was based entirely on the unregistered agreement to sell dated 23 March 1996. She could not enforce that agreement through a suit for specific performance because the document was not registered. So she had done the next best thing: she had filed a suit for injunction, asking the court to protect her possession without ever asking the court to enforce the sale.

The Supreme Court saw the problem immediately. Justice M.R. Shah, writing for the Bench that also included Justice Krishna Murari, put it bluntly: a plaintiff cannot obtain indirectly through a suit for injunction what she cannot obtain directly through a suit for specific performance. The unregistered agreement to sell could not be the foundation for a permanent injunction. To allow that would be to circumvent the registration requirements of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

The Court acknowledged the obiter: it may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used for a collateral purpose. But that doctrine has limits. Using an unregistered agreement to sell to obtain a permanent injunction that effectively grants possession — and thereby the benefit of the sale — is not a collateral purpose. It is the very thing the registration requirement was designed to prevent.

The Doctrine That Mattered

The ratio decidendi in Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi is straightforward but powerful. A plaintiff cannot obtain the relief of permanent injunction on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell when the substantive relief of specific performance is unavailable due to non-registration. The clever drafting of a suit — calling it an injunction suit instead of a specific performance suit — does not change the underlying reality. The court will look at the substance, not the label.

This is not a new principle. But the Supreme Court's application of it in this case is a sharp reminder to litigants and lawyers alike. You cannot use the procedural vehicle of a suit for permanent injunction to drive around the registration requirements of the Indian Registration Act. If the agreement is unregistered, and if the relief you are seeking is effectively the same as specific performance, the suit will fail.

THE PLAY: When your client holds an unregistered agreement to sell, do not file a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter. The court will see through the drafting and dismiss it. Either get the agreement registered, or file a suit for specific performance with a proper explanation for the non-registration — but do not try to get indirectly what the law says you cannot get directly.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates, this judgment is a cautionary tale about the limits of creative pleading. A suit for permanent injunction is a powerful tool, but it is not a magic wand. If the foundation of the suit is an unregistered document that cannot be enforced directly, the suit will not stand. The Supreme Court has made it clear: the collateral purpose doctrine does not extend to circumvent registration requirements.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is about the importance of registration. An agreement to sell that is not registered is a weak document. It cannot be used to claim possession or to enforce the sale. If you are buying property, get the agreement registered. If you are selling property, make sure the buyer does not use an unregistered agreement to claim possession and then file an injunction suit to keep it. The law protects the registered document, not the unregistered one.

The judgment also has implications for the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A suit for specific performance requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform. A suit for permanent injunction does not. By filing an injunction suit instead of a specific performance suit, the plaintiff avoids that burden. The Supreme Court has now closed that loophole. If the agreement is unregistered, the injunction suit will be dismissed.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court allowed Balram Singh's appeal. It quashed the High Court judgment dated 10 December 2019 and the first appellate court judgment dated 29 January 2001. It dismissed Kelo Devi's suit for permanent injunction. It allowed Balram Singh's counter-claim. The trial court's decree was restored. Kelo Devi had to give the property back.

No order as to costs. But the cost to Kelo Devi was the property itself — and the lesson that a cleverly drafted suit cannot fix a fundamentally flawed document.

THE BOTTOM LINE: If your agreement to sell is unregistered, do not file a suit for permanent injunction. The court will dismiss it. Get the agreement registered, or file a suit for specific performance — but do not try to get indirectly what the law says you cannot get directly.