Contract to sell or let property by one who has no title, not specifically enforceable
Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with contract to sell or let property by one who has no title, not specifically enforceable. A contract to sell or let any immovable property cannot be specifically enforced in favour of a vendor or lessor-- (a) who, knowing himself not to have any title to the property, has contracted to sell or let the property; The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
(1) A contract to sell or let any immovable property cannot be specifically enforced in favour of a vendor or lessor--
(a) who, knowing himself not to have any title to the property, has contracted to sell or let the property;
(b) who, though he entered into the contract believing that he had a good title to the property, cannot at the time fixed by the parties or by the court for the completion of the sale or letting, give the purchaser or lessee a title free from reasonable doubt.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply, as far as may be, to contracts for the sale or hire of movable property.
Section 17, The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mohammedia Coop. Building Society LTD vs Lakshmi S. Coop. Builing Soc. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A contract for sale of wakf property executed by Mujavars without prior sanction from the Wakf Board obtained in compliance with mandatory procedures prescribed under Section 36A of the Wakf Act 1954 and Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Rules cannot be enforced through decree for specific performance. The statutory procedures for alienation of wakf property, including publication of proposed transaction in official gazettes, invitation of objections for minimum 30 days, consideration of objections, and publication of final sanction order in the same manner, are mandatory and imperative in nature. Non-compliance with these procedures renders the transaction void ab initio. Furthermore, where Mujavars lack lawful authority to alienate the property and the permission purportedly granted is not authenticated or published as required by law, courts cannot grant discretionary relief of specific performance, particularly when there are intrinsic evidences of forgery and the party seeking enforcement itself engaged in subsequent contradictory conduct by making counter-bids.
On this section: Court applied Section 17 to hold that contract for sale of wakf property by Mujavars without lawful authority cannot be specifically enforced. Vendor must have title/authority to give purchaser title free from reasonable doubt.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… of Ex.A1, Sale Agreement, when the defendants failed to prove the alleged loan transaction in order to invalidate Ex.A1, Sale Agreement as per proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act? > b) Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in law in holding that Ex.A1, Sale Agreement is not enforceable under Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act on the wrong premises that Ex.A1, Sale Agreement was executed by the first defendant alone, who has only 1/4th share in the suit property without considering the fact that Ex.A1, Sale Agreement was executed by all the defendants, who are jointly entitled to the suit property? 6. The …
-
… So this provision is very clear that such agreement of sale cannot be enforced in favour of the vendor or the lessor, but it can be enforced in favour of the intending purchaser. Therefore, even under Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, there is no bar for the intending purchaser to seek specific performance of the agreement of sale as against the vendor of the property. The provision goes to show that the vendor himself cannot take the defence that there is defect in title in him and therefore, the agreement of sale …
-
… Youngmens Vysya Association and others, wherein it was held that the sale agreement in respect of other co-sharers who was not a party to the sale agreement will not bind on them and the said agreement of sale is not enforceable in law in view of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act. It is appropriate to incorporate the relevant portion in paragraph 30 of the said decision: "30. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the agreement is valid, the names of three sons are mentioned in Agreement of Sale, out of whom the agreement is executed by defendant Nos.1 and …
Questions about Section 17
What have the courts held on Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act?
Mohammedia Coop. Building Society LTD vs Lakshmi S. Coop. Builing Soc. Ltd. (06 May 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Court applied Section 17 to hold that contract for sale of wakf property by Mujavars without lawful authority cannot be specifically enforced. Vendor must have title/authority to give purchaser title free from reasonable doubt.
How do I find court cases under Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Specific Relief Act 17, section 17 Specific Relief Act, section 17 of the Specific Relief Act. People searching for it also type specific relief act 1963 section 17 and section 17 specific relief act case laws. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Mohammedia Coop. Building Society LTD vs Lakshmi S. Coop. Builing Soc. Ltd. (06 May 2008).
When did Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 17, came into force on 01 Mar 1964, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 12. Specific performance of part of contract391 words
- 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed382 words
- 15. Who may obtain specific performance330 words
- 13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title309 words
- 26. When instrument may be rectified292 words
- 20. Substituted performance of contract269 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.