Section 456: Sale of immovable, registered writing required

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1401/2553 (2010) ★ Landmark

   A sale of land not registered with the competent official is void under section 456 paragraph 1. Where the land has no document of title the seller holds only a possessory right, and by delivering the land the seller abandons possession, so the buyer acquires a possessory right by operation of sections 1377 and 1378. That right comes from the taking of possession, not from the void contract, so the buyer may restrain interference with his possession but cannot compel the seller or the seller estate to register a transfer.

   The plaintiffs bought 5 rai of land held under an n.s.3 certificate, paid the price in full, and were put into possession on 12 October 1996; the seller died in 1998 without registering the transfer. They sued her estate administrator for delivery of the n.s.3 and registration of their names. The Supreme Court held the sale void for want of registration under section 456 paragraph 1; but because the land carried no document of title the seller had only a possessory right, and by delivering the land she abandoned it, so the plaintiffs acquired possession under sections 1377 and 1378 by operation of law rather than under the void contract. They therefore could not compel the administrator to register a transfer, and the one-year limitation question under section 1754 paragraph 3 did not arise. Since they did hold possession, the Court ordered the administrator not to disturb it.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 8163/2554 (2011)

   A preliminary agreement to buy or sell land supported by earnest money is enforceable without registration.

   The parties intended to create a preliminary sale agreement supported by earnest money under Section 456 paragraph 2. Such a preliminary agreement does not require registration and is enforceable by action.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 14921/2555 (2012)

   Where the parties to a sale of a vessel of five tons or more intend to register the transfer of ownership once the price is paid in full, the contract is a promise to sell and not an executed sale, so the writing-and-registration requirement of section 456 paragraph one does not apply and the contract is not void for want of registration.

   The contract for the sale of three vessels of five tons or more showed that the seller and the buyer meant to register the transfer of ownership once the buyer had paid in full. The Court therefore classified it as a promise to sell rather than an executed sale, so section 456 paragraph one did not apply and it was not void. A party to a promise to sell need not own the property when the contract is made, since the point of the sale is that the buyer obtains ownership on paying the agreed price and it is for the seller to effect the transfer. As the seller had delivered the three vessels together with powers of attorney to change the registered owner on the day of signing, the contract was enforceable.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.