An agreement to sell — the iqrarnama — is where most land deals in Rajasthan start: a price, an advance and a date for the registry. It does not transfer the land. When one side backs out, the other can sue for specific performance, a court order to complete the sale. These are the rules courts apply, and they are stricter on buyers than many expect.
The short answer
- An agreement to sell is not a sale; at most it gives a right to sue for the sale (Narandas Karsondas; Shakeel Ahmed).
- A buyer must prove he was ready and willing to pay throughout, from agreement to decree (Saradamani, 2011; V.N.A.S. Chandran, 2026).
- Where the agreement makes payment dates essential, missing them can end it (Saradamani).
- Long unexplained delay can defeat a buyer, especially where prices have risen (K.S. Vidyanadam, 1997).
- Earnest money can be forfeited only if the contract clearly says so (K.R. Suresh, 2025).
- Later buyers who knew of an earlier agreement can lose to it (K.S. Manjunath, 2025).
- Agreement and advanceA promise to sell. Nothing is transferred yet.
- Balance readyKeep proof that the money was available.
- Registry dateAttend the Sub-Registrar on the day, and keep proof.
- Registered sale deedOwnership passes only now.
- If one side backs outWritten notice, then a suit within time.
The questions a court asks
In Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi (2019) the Supreme Court listed them: is there a valid, concluded contract; has the buyer been, and is he still, ready and willing to complete it; has he actually done his part; would enforcing it be fair or cause hardship to the seller; and should some other relief, such as a refund of the earnest money, be given instead.
Readiness and willingness, all the way through
In Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi (2011) the agreement expressly made paying on the due dates essential; the buyer missed them, and the Court refused to enforce the sale, though she was refunded with interest. It told courts to check strictly whether a buyer was ready and willing, and not to enforce every agreement just because the suit was filed within limitation. Time is still not presumed to be of the essence in property sales unless the agreement shows that intention.
The recent cases apply the same standard. In V.N.A.S. Chandran v. S. Venila (31 July 2026) the Court restored a refusal to enforce a 2004 agreement: dishonoured cheques and money arranged only at the appeal stage did not show continuous readiness. In Sangita Sinha v. Bhawana Bhardwaj (April 2025) the buyer lost where the seller had cancelled the agreement and she had encashed the returned drafts; later in 2025, in K.S. Manjunath, the Court held that no separate declaration against a unilateral termination was needed on those facts. And in Russi Fisheries v. Bhavna Seth (April 2026) the buyer won because he kept receipts, written extensions and proof that he attended the registry office on the final date.
Delay
In K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan (1997) the Court refused to enforce an agreement for a buyer who sat on it for years while prices rose sharply: even where time is not of the essence, a buyer must act within a reasonable time. The Court was speaking mainly of urban property. In 2024 it relied on the same passage in R. Kandasamy v. T.R.K. Sarawathy.
Earnest money
In K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima (May 2025) the Court held that an advance can be forfeited as earnest money only when the contract clearly and explicitly provides for it. In that case it did, and the forfeiture was upheld with no refund.
Later buyers and pending suits
In K.S. Manjunath v. Moorasavirappa (10 November 2025), sellers of agricultural land cancelled a 2000 agreement unilaterally and in 2007 sold to others. The Court held that the later buyers knew of the earlier agreement, so they were not protected as bona fide purchasers, and directed them to convey the land to the first buyers on payment of the balance. Russi Fisheries (2026) held later transfers made during a pending suit hit by lis pendens. A decree for specific performance is still not ownership: in Rajeswari v. Shanmugam (November 2025) the Court held that such a decree does not itself create any interest in the land; title passes only when the sale deed is executed and registered.
The judgments behind this guide
Each links to its full entry in the land judgments register, with the bench, the citation, where the ruling stands today and the sources.
- K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan — Supreme Court, 6 February 1997. Good law.
- Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi — Supreme Court, 4 July 2011. Good law.
- Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi — Supreme Court, 7 January 2019. Good law.
Recent rulings, 2025–2026
- 31 July 2026 · Supreme Court of India — Two decades' delay and broken readiness defeat specific performance: SC. What it means and the source
- 9 April 2026 · Supreme Court of India — SC upholds specific performance of a 1988 farmland sale; seller's later transfers fail. What it means and the source
- 19 November 2025 · Supreme Court of India — Assignment of a specific performance decree need not be registered, SC holds. What it means and the source
- 10 November 2025 · Supreme Court of India — Later buyers with notice lose to the earlier agreement holder in farmland dispute: SC. What it means and the source
- 2 May 2025 · Supreme Court of India — Earnest money can be forfeited only if the contract clearly says so: Supreme Court. What it means and the source
- 4 April 2025 · Supreme Court of India — No specific performance without challenging the seller's cancellation of the deal: SC. What it means and the source
What to check before you buy
- Before paying an advance, read the forfeiture clause: is the money earnest money or part payment, and what happens on default?
- Keep proof that you were ready to pay the balance, and proof that you attended the registry on the agreed date.
- If the seller cancels, reply in writing and take legal advice at once; accepting returned money can weaken a later claim.
- Before buying, ask whether any earlier agreement to sell, suit or lis pendens exists on the land, and have the seller declare it in writing.
- Do not hold land on an agreement for years. Complete the registered sale within the agreed time.
Tools that help: Buying checklist · Power of attorney in land deals · Agreement to sell, in the Academy encyclopaedia
What this guide cannot tell you
Limitation periods, the effect of the 2018 amendment on older agreements and the remedies available depend on the dates and terms of each agreement. This page gives no view on any particular deal.
FAQ · अक्सर पूछे सवाल
The seller took my advance and now refuses to register. What can I do?
You can sue for specific performance within the limitation period. The court asks whether there was a concluded contract, whether you were and are ready and willing, whether you did your part, whether enforcing it is fair, and whether a refund should be given instead (Kamal Kumar, 2019). Take advice from an advocate promptly.
Can the seller keep my earnest money?
Only if the contract clearly provides for forfeiture. In K.R. Suresh (2025) the Supreme Court upheld forfeiture because the agreement clearly treated the advance as earnest money.
Is time of the essence in a land agreement?
Not presumed, unless the agreement shows that intention, as the Supreme Court restated in Saradamani Kandappan (2011). But a buyer must still act within a reasonable time, and long delay can defeat the claim (K.S. Vidyanadam, 1997).
Sources
- K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.