JUDGMENT Pathak, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure having lost in both the Courts below. 2. On 18-2-1969, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that, on 23-4-1963, the suit lands detailed in para 1 were sold to him on a consideration of Rs. 2,200/- and delivered possession thereof and executed agreement, Ex. P-1, to evidence the same. Despite this, defendants No.3 to 7 executed a registered sale-deed dated 10-1-1969 (Ex. D-1) in favour of defendants 1 and 2 which was without consideration. It was alleged that the sale-deed was obtained by defendants 1 and 2 by fraud and after administering liquor to defendant No.3. Armed with that sale-deed, defendants No. l and 2 are trying to interfere with his possession and harvest the standing crop. Hence he prayed for declaration that the sale deed (Ex. D-l) is illegal and not binding on him and for permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from interfering with his possession. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 alone contested the suit, while others remained ex-parte. They denied that the plaintiff has no right to challenge the sale deed in their favour or that the same was without consideration or was executed under the influence of liquor. According to them, standing crops were of defendants 3 to 7 and the same were delivered to them along with the possession of the lands. 4. The trial Court partly decreed the suit on findings that the plaintiff failed to prove that the agreement (Ex. P-l) was executed by defendants 3 to 7 selling the suit lands to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's possession was found proved from before the execution of agreement (Ex. P 1) and therefore, injunction was issued against defendants 1 and 2 restraining them from forcibly taking possession of the suit lands from the plaintiff. 5. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court holding that his possession was only for a period of three years and has no right to injunction against defendants 1 and 2. Hence, this second appeal. 6. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that mere agreement to sell does not create any interest in favour of the purchaser. See also: Ram Baran v. Ram Mohit AIR 1967 SC 744 . Hence, this second appeal. 6. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that mere agreement to sell does not create any interest in favour of the purchaser. See also: Ram Baran v. Ram Mohit AIR 1967 SC 744 . Such an agreement merely creates obligation annexed to the ownership of property which may be enforced against a transferee with notice or a gratuitous transferee See Bai Dosabai v. Mathurdas AIR 1980 SC 1334 . Therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to question the sale-deed in favour of defendants 1 and 2. 7. It was next argued that the plaintiff was found in possession of the suit lands from before the execution of sale-deed (Ex. D-l) in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and was, therefore, entitled to injunction to the effect that the defendants cannot forcibly evict him from the suit lands. The question was answered in Nair Service Society v. K. C. Alexander AIR 1968 SC 1165 and it was held that in a suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff need not prove title, if the period of six months has passed, the defendant is entitled to raise question of title and require the plaintiff to prove better title. Reliance was placed on Bhagwatsingh v. Shyam Sunder 1972 JLJ-SN 39. This was a case under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, while the present case is a suit based on title acquired under an agreement of sale. This case is not under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction, even on proof of his prior possession against the true owner, viz., the defendants, The plaintiffs came forward with the plea that defendants 3 to 7 sold the suit lands and also delivered possession under the agreement (Ex. P-1) to him. Both the Courts below concurrently found Ex. P-1 as not proved. 8. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Since no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, there shall be no order as to costs.