ORDER : G. S. Ahluwalia, J. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12-09-2023 passed by District Judge Raghogarh, District Guna in RCA No. 78/2019, as well as judgment and decree dated 23-02-2018 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Raghogarh, District Guna in civil suit No. 31A/2016. 2. The appellants are the defendants who have lost their case from before both the courts below. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction as well as for mesne profits by pleading inter alia that they are the exclusive owners and in possession of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 245/1/3, area 1.500 hectares. The aforesaid land is the disputed property. The defendants Nos.1 to 7 belong to the same family and they are rich neighboring agriculturists. With an intention to create a boundary dispute, they always try to harass the plaintiff by extending threats. The defendants had also cut multiple trees with an intention to create a dispute on the property. On 24-06-2016, at about 11:00 a.m., the defendants started claiming that they would cultivate the land. When it was objected by the plaintiff, then Bahadur Singh, Halkaiya, and Pran Singh started abusing them filthy. When the plaintiff objected to it, then the defendants were out and out to assault the plaintiff but the villagers somehow pacified the situation. Later on, the plaintiff lodged an FIR at Police Station Vijaypur, but on account of their good relationship with the police, no action was taken against defendants. Now the defendants are extending a threat that they would cut the standing crop of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of title as well as for permanent injunction. 4. The suit was subsequently amended and it was pleaded that after the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mesne profits was filed, the plaintiff and his wife along with three daughters-in-law were working in the field. At that time, defendant No. 1, Bahadur Singh, came on a tractor along with other defendants who were armed with lathi and farsa and started cultivating the land forcefully. At that time, defendant No. 1, Bahadur Singh, came on a tractor along with other defendants who were armed with lathi and farsa and started cultivating the land forcefully. When it was objected by the plaintiff, then they pushed the wife of the plaintiff and started extending threats that they would assault them and also started abusing them filthily. As the plaintiff, his wife, and three daughters-in-law were apprehensive of their lives, therefore, they somehow managed to save their lives and self-respect by managing to run away from the field. On the next day, they lodged an FIR but the police did not take any action. About two and a half months after the institution of the suit, the defendants, on the basis of a 17-year-old and illegal agreement to sell, have started claiming that they are in possession of the property in dispute from the year 1999 in the capacity of Bhumiswami, whereas the plaintiff had obtained the property in dispute on a government patta, and thus they did not have any right or title to alienate the property or to enter into an agreement with the defendants. The plaintiff had taken a loan from the father of the defendants and the said loan was also repaid by the plaintiff within a period of one year and had also got the possession back. Therefore, during the lifetime of Chintu Lal (father of defendants Nos.1 to 4 and grandfather of defendants Nos. 5 to 7), no action was taken for execution of the sale deed. Now the defendants, on the basis of a 17-year-old agreement to sell, are trying to grab the property of the plaintiff and now they have taken possession on 13-09-2016, and thus decree for possession was also sought. 5. The defendants Nos. 1 to 7 filed their written statement and admitted that the disputed property is recorded in the name of Kanhiram. However, it was claimed that from 07-09-1999, the plaintiff is not in possession of the property in dispute. It was admitted that the plaintiff had got this land on government lease which was non-transferable. Since Kanhiram/plaintiff was in need of money, therefore he sold the aforesaid land to the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and grandfather of defendants Nos 5 to 7, namely Chintu Lal, for a consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- and had also received the entire consideration. 6. Since Kanhiram/plaintiff was in need of money, therefore he sold the aforesaid land to the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and grandfather of defendants Nos 5 to 7, namely Chintu Lal, for a consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- and had also received the entire consideration. 6. Since the land in dispute was a lease land and the sale of the same was not permissible without the permission of the Collector, therefore in compliance of the agreement to sell dated 07-09-1999, the possession of the property in dispute was handed over to Chintu Lal and the agreement to sell was got notarized. It was also decided that the plaintiff shall execute the sale deed after obtaining permission from the Collector. It was also decided that the plaintiff shall not have any right or title in the land in dispute. The assurance given by the plaintiff was relied upon by Chintu Lal, and after the death of Chintu Lal, the defendants are in possession of the property in dispute. It was pleaded that now the intentions of the plaintiff have become dishonest. The incidents of threat or cutting trees was also denied. Thus it was claimed that the plaintiff has handed over the possession of the property in dispute after entering into an agreement to sell on 07-09-1999, and since then the defendants are in possession of the property in dispute. 7. The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellants preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed by the appellate court. 9. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, it is submitted by counsel for the appellants that it was the case of the plaintiff himself that the plaintiff had never alienated the property to Chintu Lal but he had executed the agreement to sell (Exhibit D-1) by way of mortgage. It is submitted: once a mortgage, always a mortgage. Neither the plaintiff has filed a suit for redemption of mortgage nor they have proved that the amount was returned back by the plaintiff to the father of the defendants. It is submitted: once a mortgage, always a mortgage. Neither the plaintiff has filed a suit for redemption of mortgage nor they have proved that the amount was returned back by the plaintiff to the father of the defendants. It is further submitted that the findings given by the courts below that the defendants were never placed in possession in the year 1999 but that they have forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit is also erroneous. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is the case of the plaintiff that about 17 years back, i.e., on 07-09- 1999, the plaintiff had executed an agreement to sell (Exhibit D-1) which in fact was a mortgage deed and after one year, the entire mortgage amount was returned back. It is further submitted that the possession of the land in dispute was never handed over to Chintu Lal who is the father of defendants Nos.1 to 4 and grandfather of defendants Nos.5 to 7. It is further submitted that the land in dispute was a land given by government on lease, therefore it was non-transferable. Whereas it is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff had sold the land to Chintu Lal, and since it was a non-transferable land as it was a government lease land, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed in absence of a permission granted by the Collector. Thus it was claimed that an agreement to sell was executed with an understanding that the sale deed would be executed immediately after obtaining the permission from the Collector. It is submitted that the plaintiff had never returned the mortgaged amount as claimed by him. 12. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the following things appear to be undisputed: i. The land in dispute was leased out by the Government to the plaintiff and it was non-transferable. ii. In light of Section 165(7-B) of MPLR Code, the said land could not have been sold without obtaining permission from the Collector. iii. Admittedly, there is no permission from the Collector. iv. The so-called agreement to sell (Exhibit D-1) was executed on 07-09-1999 and no steps were taken by the defendants for specific performance of the contract. ii. In light of Section 165(7-B) of MPLR Code, the said land could not have been sold without obtaining permission from the Collector. iii. Admittedly, there is no permission from the Collector. iv. The so-called agreement to sell (Exhibit D-1) was executed on 07-09-1999 and no steps were taken by the defendants for specific performance of the contract. There is nothing on record to suggest that the defendants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and in absence of such pleading they are also not entitled to maintain their possession in light of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. 13. No right or title gets transferred by virtue of agreement to sell. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. M.A.S. Subramanian & Ors. by order dated 07.01.2025 passed in a Civil Appeal (Arising out of Diary No.38616 of 2018) has held as under : "6. It is well settled that an agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property does not transfer title in favour of the purchaser under the agreement. In view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property. The only mode by which an immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) can be sold is by a sale deed duly registered in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908." 14. Both the courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that the mortgage amount was returned by the plaintiffs to Chintu Lal. 15. Counsel for the appellants could not point out any perversity in the appreciation of evidence done by the Courts below. Thus, it is held that in absence of any perversity, the concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs had returned the mortgage amount to Chintu Lal is hereby affirmed. 16. Even otherwise, it is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell the disputed property to Chintu Lal by executing agreement to sell Exhibit D-1. The agreement to sell (Exhibit D-1) was executed on 07-09-1999. Both the courts below have given a specific finding of fact that the defendants were never placed in possession in the year 1999 and they have forcibly taken possession only after service of notice of the suit. The agreement to sell (Exhibit D-1) was executed on 07-09-1999. Both the courts below have given a specific finding of fact that the defendants were never placed in possession in the year 1999 and they have forcibly taken possession only after service of notice of the suit. Thus, it is clear that the defendants were not placed in possession of the property in dispute by virtue of agreement dated 07-09- 1999. No steps were taken by the defendants for getting the sale deed executed. No notices were issued by the defendants to the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed. In other words, there is nothing on record to show that the defendants were ever ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Since they have failed to show their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, therefore, even otherwise under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, they are not entitled to maintain their possession. No right or title gets transferred by virtue of agreement to sell. 17. It is a well-established principle of law that this Court, in exercise of power under Section 100 of CPC, cannot interfere with the findings of fact, even if they are shown to be erroneous. The findings of fact can be interfered with only if they are shown to be perverse. No perversity could be pointed out by counsel for the appellants. 18. No other argument was advanced by counsel for the appellants. 19. Ex consequentia, the judgment and decree dated 12-09-2023 passed by District Judge Raghogarh, District Guna in RCA No. 78/2019, as well as judgment and decree dated 23-02-2018 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Raghogarh, District Guna in civil suit No.31A/2016 are hereby affirmed.20. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.