Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had earlier upheld a decree granting possession, mesne profits, and declaration in favour of the plaintiff. The Court held that documents such as an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt, and a Registered Will executed by the father of the disputing parties did not confer valid ownership rights in immovable property in the absence of a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court further ruled that the plaintiff could not claim protection under Section 53A of the Act as he was not in possession of the property. Consequently, the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed, while protecting the limited rights of the second defendant as a bona fide purchaser.

The dispute centred around property bearing No. 563 at Ambedkar Basti, near Balmiki Gate, Delhi. The property was originally owned by Shri Kundan Lal, father of both the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the property on the basis of multiple documents, namely:

Also Read: Supreme Court | Directions to All High Courts on Timely Pronouncement of Reserved Judgments | If Not Delivered Within Three Months, Registrar General Must Place Matter Before Chief Justice

• An Agreement to Sell dated 16 May 1996,

• A General Power of Attorney executed the same day,

• An Affidavit and a Receipt acknowledging payment of consideration, and

• A Registered Will also dated 16 May 1996.

According to the plaintiff, these documents collectively established his ownership over the property. He contended that defendant no. 1, his brother, initially occupied the property as a licensee but later became a trespasser. The plaintiff alleged that in violation of his rights, defendant no. 1 wrongfully sold half of the property to defendant no. 2. Consequently, the plaintiff sought relief by filing a suit for possession, declaration of ownership, recovery of mesne profits, and a mandatory injunction directing defendant no. 1 to hand over the original property documents.

Defendant no. 1 contested the claim, asserting that the property had been orally transferred to him by their father as far back as July 1973. He maintained that he had been in continuous, uninterrupted possession of the property since then. He also emphasised that in a previous civil suit filed in 1996, the plaintiff himself had admitted that their father was the owner of the property. That earlier suit had been withdrawn by the plaintiff in June 1997.

Defendant no. 1 therefore filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff—Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, Affidavit, and Receipt—were null and void, particularly since Shri Kundan Lal had passed away on 10 April 1997.

The Additional District Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, validating the documents and dismissing the counterclaim. Defendant no. 1 appealed before the Delhi High Court (Regular First Appeal No. 358 of 2000). The High Court dismissed the appeal on 9 April 2012, relying on the precedent of Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank, which at that time permitted ownership claims based on GPA sales.

Subsequently, the matter reached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9012 of 2011. By order dated 31 October 2011, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that GPA, Agreement to Sell, and similar transactions did not amount to transfers under the Transfer of Property Act. The Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal. The High Court, upon rehearing, dismissed the appeal again on 9 April 2012.

Aggrieved, defendant no. 1 brought the present Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012 before the Supreme Court.

In submissions, counsel for defendant no. 1 argued that:

• Title could not be conferred without a registered sale deed,

• The Will had not been proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act,

• Section 53A protection was inapplicable since possession was not with the plaintiff,

• The attesting witnesses had failed to prove the execution of documents, and

• Defendant no. 1’s long-standing possession since 1973, without any objection from their father, showed his ownership.

Counsel for defendant no. 2 contended that defendant no. 2 was a bona fide purchaser of half the property from defendant no. 1 and that interim orders of both the High Court and Supreme Court had protected his possession.

The plaintiff, though duly served, did not appear before the Supreme Court and was proceeded against ex parte.

The Court recorded that the central question was whether the documents—Agreement to Sell, GPA, Receipt, Affidavit, and Will—executed by Shri Kundan Lal could confer valid title to the plaintiff.

On the Agreement to Sell, the Court observed: “Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter.”

It stated: “At best, it only enables the plaintiff to seek for specific performance for the execution of a sale deed and does not create an interest or charge on the suit property.”

On the GPA, the Court recorded: “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.”

Regarding the Will, the Court stated: “There is not an iota of discussion about the validity of the Will as contemplated under Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and yet, the validity of the Will has been upheld. This is contrary to law.”

The Court further observed: “The will propounded by plaintiff is surrounded with suspicious circumstances… It is highly unlikely that a father would grant his entire property to one of his children, at the cost of three others, without there being any evidence of estrangement.”

The Court also recorded: “Since there was no possession with the plaintiff, he cannot derive any benefit under the doctrine of part-possession.”

Finally, the Court stated: “The property was originally owned by Shri Kundan Lal… On his demise the succession has opened up… Class-I legal heirs of deceased Shri Kundan Lal would be entitled to the share in the suit schedule property.”

The Court directed that the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court was set aside. It declared that the appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff’s suit stood dismissed.

Also Read: Section 232 BNSS | No Bar on Committal Courts to Consider Bail Applications | Right to Seek Bail Integral to Personal Liberty: Kerala High Court

The Court stated: “In the light of the aforementioned discussion, the impugned judgment is set aside, and appeal is allowed, and suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed subject to the observations made herein above.”

It further recorded: “The right of the second defendant would stand protected to the extent of the share of the appellant only and except reiterating to this effect, contentions of all parties are kept open, and no opinion is expressed and they are at liberty to work out their rights if so advised in accordance with law.”

The Court concluded by holding that no order as to costs was necessary and that all pending applications stood consigned to record.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant(s): Mr. S. Mahendran, AOR

For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR; Mr. Shiv Prakash Pandey, Adv.; Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv.; Ms. Gauri Pandey, Adv.; Ms. Sharmishtha Chowdhury, Adv.

Case Title: Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. LRs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1059

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Sandeep Mehta