# You paid the advance and signed an agreement to sell. Is the house yours now? > No. In Pakistan ownership of a house passes by a registered sale deed, not by an agreement to sell (iqrar nama). The agreement only lets you ask a court to complete the sale, and in 2024 the Supreme Court said a buyer's one duty is to pay on time. - Topic: Property and inheritance - Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan - Citation: 2024 SCMR 1862 - The myth: "Paid the advance and signed an agreement to sell? Then the house is yours." Verdict: Wrong. - Watch: https://failegal.site/media/agreement-to-sell-bayana-not-ownership-2024-scmr-1862 (video https://failegal.site/media/agreement-to-sell-bayana-not-ownership-2024-scmr-1862/reel.mp4, 1:08) - Published by FAI Legal on 2026-10-10 Across Pakistan, house deals often start with a bayana (advance) and an iqrar nama (agreement to sell) on stamp paper. Many buyers then feel the house is already theirs. This matters to anyone buying or selling a house or plot, and to anyone who has paid an advance and is waiting for the transfer. ## Key points - Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882: a sale of tangible immoveable property worth one hundred rupees or more can be made only by a registered instrument. - The same section says a contract for sale "does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property". - The Supreme Court in 2023 SCMR 815: an agreement to sell is not a title deed; the only right it gives is to seek specific performance in court. - The Supreme Court in 2024 SCMR 1862: the only obligation of a buyer is to make timely payment, and courts cannot extend the time for the balance against the terms of the agreement. ## The rule in one line The bayana and the iqrar nama start a deal; they do not finish it. You become the owner when a registered sale deed is made in your name. Until then, if the seller will not complete the sale, your remedy is a suit for specific performance, and you must show you were ready and willing to pay. ## What happened in this case On 17 April 2006 a man agreed to buy a house for a total price of one hundred and seventy thousand rupees. He paid eighty thousand. The balance of ninety thousand was to be paid by 20 July 2007, and a second agreement of 18 October 2007 extended that date to 20 February 2008. The house was never transferred to him. He filed a suit for specific performance, and the suit was dismissed. He appealed, and the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal in a judgment announced on 21 October 2014, on one condition: he had to deposit the balance of ninety thousand rupees in court within fifteen days, failing which the suit would be deemed dismissed. ## Fifteen days He did not deposit the money within the fifteen days, so the suit stood dismissed. He then filed execution proceedings anyway, asking the court to execute what the Supreme Court later called a non-existing decree. The other side objected; the revisional court accepted the objections, and the Lahore High Court maintained that order. ## What the Supreme Court said A bench of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard his petition on 2 September 2024 and refused leave to appeal. The Court said the appellate court had given him extraordinary relief and he still had not paid the balance (paragraph 3). It added that courts are not legally empowered to extend the time for depositing the balance against the terms of the agreement, because that would rewrite the parties' agreement. The only obligation of a buyer is to make timely payment. If the seller will not take the money, the buyer must show he was ready, able and willing to pay, and that he offered it and then prepared a pay order or deposited it in court (paragraph 4). Eighteen years after the agreement, the house was still not his. The order does not say what happened to the eighty thousand rupees he had paid. ## The case at a glance - **Facts:** Agreement of 17 April 2006 to buy a house for Rs. 170,000; Rs. 80,000 paid; balance Rs. 90,000 due by 20 July 2007, extended to 20 February 2008. Suit for specific performance dismissed; appeal allowed on 21 October 2014 on condition he deposit Rs. 90,000 within fifteen days. He did not; the suit stood dismissed. His execution petition failed in the revisional court and the High Court. - **The question:** Whether the buyer could enforce a decree that never came into being because he did not deposit the balance in time. - **What the Court held:** Leave refused and the petition dismissed. There was no illegality in the concurrent decisions. - **Why:** The buyer's only obligation is timely payment. Courts cannot extend the time for the balance against the terms of the agreement; a buyer whose payment is refused must show readiness and willingness, an offer, and a pay order or deposit in court. - **Limits:** This was a short order refusing leave. The Court noted one possible exception: when the balance is only a small part of the total price. Whether the advance can be recovered was not decided here. ## In the Court’s words > "The only obligation of a buyer of a property is to make timely payment." (2024 SCMR 1862, para 4) > "On the basis of a sale agreement, no legal character or right can be established to prove the title of the property unless the title is transferred pursuant to such agreement to sell." (2023 SCMR 815, para 6) ## The law it relies on - **Transfer of Property Act, 1882, s.54:** Sale of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards "can be made only by a registered instrument". A contract for sale "does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property". - **Specific Relief Act, 1877, s.12:** Specific performance of a contract, the suit a buyer files when the seller will not complete the sale. ## What this does not mean - It does not mean an agreement to sell is worthless. It gives you the right to sue for specific performance if the seller refuses to complete the sale while you are ready and willing to pay. - It does not mean a buyer loses whenever the seller refuses the money. The Supreme Court said a buyer whose payment is refused can protect himself by showing readiness, an offer, and a pay order or a deposit in court. - It does not decide what happens to the advance paid. The order in this case says nothing about the eighty thousand rupees. ## Questions people ask ### Does an agreement to sell make me the owner of the house? No. Under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, ownership of immoveable property worth one hundred rupees or more passes only by a registered instrument. An agreement to sell gives you a right to seek specific performance. ### What should I do if the seller will not take the balance? Keep proof that you offered the money, prepare a pay order or demand draft, and speak to a lawyer about depositing it in court and filing for specific performance. The Supreme Court said this is what a buyer must show in 2024 SCMR 1862. ### Can a court give me more time to pay the balance? The Supreme Court said in 2024 SCMR 1862 that courts are not legally empowered to extend the time for the balance against the terms of the agreement. If a court orders a deposit within a fixed time, pay within it. ## Sources - Abdil Ali v. Additional District Judge, Gojra and others, 2024 SCMR 1862, Supreme Court of Pakistan, 2 September 2024, paras 1, 2, 3, 4. Buyer's only obligation is timely payment; courts cannot extend the time for the balance against the agreement; leave refused where the balance was not deposited. (verified against full text) (official text: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/c.p._2293_l_16.pdf) - Rao Abdul Rehman (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Afzal (deceased) through L.Rs., 2023 SCMR 815, Supreme Court of Pakistan, 16 January 2023, paras 6. An agreement to sell is not a title deed; the only right it gives is to seek specific performance. (verified against full text) (official text: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/c.p._1133_l_2016.pdf) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, s.54 (text checked in FAI Statute Search) (official text: https://pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-bpk%3D-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj) ## What the reel says Heard this one? "Paid the advance and signed an agreement to sell? Then the house is yours." Wrong. The law: a sale of immoveable property worth one hundred rupees or more can be made only by a registered instrument, and a contract for sale "does not, of itself, create any interest" in the property (Transfer of Property Act 1882, s.54). The agreement lets you sue for specific performance, nothing more (Supreme Court, 2023 SCMR 815). The case: in 2006 a man agreed to buy a house for Rs. 1,70,000. He paid Rs. 80,000; Rs. 90,000 was left. The house was never transferred to him. He sued and lost. On appeal he won, on one condition: deposit the Rs. 90,000 in court within fifteen days. He did not, and the suit was dismissed. Supreme Court (September 2024): "The only obligation of a buyer of a property is to make timely payment", and courts cannot extend the time for the balance against the terms of the agreement. Leave refused (Abdil Ali v. Additional District Judge, Gojra, 2024 SCMR 1862). --- Educational legal information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Speak to a qualified lawyer about your situation. Reading this page does not create a lawyer and client relationship. Review status: Pending advocate review. English: https://failegal.site/media/agreement-to-sell-bayana-not-ownership-2024-scmr-1862 · Urdu: https://failegal.site/media/ur/agreement-to-sell-bayana-not-ownership-2024-scmr-1862 FAI Media is part of FAI Legal (https://failegal.site), research on Pakistani statutes and judgments. Free to watch and read.