GPA-Cum-Sale Agreement Confers No Ownership, Cannot Override Specific Performance Decree: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam dismissed an appeal by claimants asserting ownership over a property based on a 2007 General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement. The Court held that such an instrument does not create ownership or title in immovable property and cannot override a prior agreement of sale that had culminated in a decree for specific performance and delivery of possession. Upholding the execution court’s order, the Bench affirmed the decree holder’s entitlement to possession and reiterated that GPA/SA transactions are not valid modes of property transfer.
The dispute arose from an execution proceeding concerning delivery of possession of immovable property pursuant to a decree for specific performance. The decree holder, who had earlier obtained an ex parte decree in 2017 for enforcement of a sale agreement executed in 2006, initiated execution proceedings seeking delivery of possession. The appellants, claiming to be in possession, filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting independent ownership rights.
The appellants contended that the original owner, who was the judgment debtor in the decree holder’s suit, had subsequently executed a General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale in their favour in 2007 for valuable consideration and delivered possession of the property. They further stated that the property had been leased by the first appellant to the second appellant for operating a restaurant and bar, supported by municipal tax receipts, bar licence renewals, and other records showing possession and control. They alleged that the 2006 agreement between the decree holder and the original owner was collusive and ante-dated.
The decree holder denied these assertions, stating that the 2006 agreement of sale was genuine and prior in time, that the subsequent General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement was collusive, and that possession had never been lawfully transferred to the appellants. The decree holder also pointed out that the sale consideration under the 2006 agreement had been fully paid and the sale deed had been executed through court pursuant to the decree.
The trial court examined oral and documentary evidence, including the 2007 General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale, tax and licence documents, and the registered sale deed executed under the court’s decree. It applied the provisions of Order 21 Rules 97, 98, and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adjudicate the appellants’ resistance to the decree’s execution, as well as Section 53-A and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act concerning rights arising from agreements of sale
The Court noted that the appellants failed to establish that the earlier agreement was ante-dated, citing the appellant’s own cross-examination where he stated, “I do not know whether the 1st respondent obtained an agreement to sell from 2nd respondent in respect of the schedule property prior to 2007.”
The Bench referred to Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656, observing, “A transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance. In the absence of such a deed, no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.”
It further stated, “A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title, or interest in an immovable property. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee.” The Court clarified that the judgment in Suraj Lamp was not prospective, holding that “the legal position reiterated therein was already well settled and applies equally to transactions executed prior to that decision.”
Relying on Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 443), the Bench noted, “A law declared by a constitutional court operates retrospectively unless expressly stated to be prospective.” The Court therefore held that the GPA-cum-Sale Agreement executed in 2007 could not confer ownership rights. The document, at best, could be treated as an agreement of sale conferring limited rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, only where part performance was proved. However, the appellants’ case was of an “out and out transfer” rather than part performance, and they had not sought specific performance.
The Bench added that “mutation entries do not create or extinguish title but only enable payment of land revenue,” referring to C. Narendranath v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2018 3 ALT 49) and Koyyada Andalu v. Lingala Sathyanarayana (2014 5 ALT 714).
The Bench held, “The Special General Power of Attorney dated 17.01.2007 in favour of the 1st appellant does not confer or create any right, title, and interest in favour of the 1st appellant, nor based thereon the lease in favour of the 2nd appellant by the 1st appellant confers any right to the 2nd appellant, so as to object to the execution of the decree.”
“The decree holder is entitled for delivery of possession. The appellants have no right to resist or obstruct the delivery of the possession to the decree holder.” Accordingly, the Bench held that “the Order and Decree dated 05.08.2024 under challenge in the appeal calls for no interference.”
“The Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Sri P. Rajasekhar, Assisted by Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi
For the Respondents: Sri K. V. Vijay Kumar
Case Title: Konkanala Suryaprakasha Rao (died) and others v. Kampa Bhaskara Rao and another
Case Number: First Appeal No. 492 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
