1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The appeal arose from a protracted property dispute among family members concerning property No. 563 at Ambedkar Basti, Delhi. The property originally belonged to Shri Kundan Lal, father of both the appellant Ramesh Chand (defendant before the trial court) and respondent Suresh Chand (plaintiff before the trial court).
Suresh Chand claimed ownership of the property based on a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, and a registered Will, all allegedly executed on 16 May 1996 by their father in his favour. He contended that after execution of these documents, Ramesh Chand’s possession became that of a trespasser, and that Ramesh Chand wrongfully sold half of the property to a third party (Respondent No. 2).
The plaintiff instituted Suit No. 613/1997 before the Additional District Judge, Delhi, seeking possession, mesne profits, declaration, and mandatory injunction.
Ramesh Chand counterclaimed that the property had been orally transferred to him in 1973, asserting continuous possession and denying the validity of the documents.
The Trial Court decreed in favour of Suresh Chand, upholding the documents as valid and dismissing the counterclaim. The Delhi High Court, in RFA No. 358/2000, affirmed the decree on 9 April 2012, relying on Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank (2001).
However, since Asha M. Jain was later overruled in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court. Upon rehearing, the High Court again dismissed the appeal, prompting the present Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012 before the Supreme Court.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The Court framed three primary issues:
- Whether documents such as an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt, and Will confer valid title in immovable property?
- Whether the plaintiff could invoke the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- What relief the parties were entitled to, considering the competing claims?
3. Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions (Ramesh Chand)
- Ownership cannot be claimed on the basis of Agreement to Sell, GPA, or Will, in absence of a registered sale deed as mandated by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA).
- The Will was not duly proved as per Sections 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- The attesting witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) failed to prove execution of the alleged documents.
- The plaintiff himself had earlier admitted in a previous suit (OS No. 294/1996) that the father was the owner.
- Defendant had been in continuous possession since 1973, and the father never challenged his possession during his lifetime.
Respondent No. 2’s Submissions
- The second respondent purchased 50% share from Ramesh Chand as a bona fide purchaser.
- His possession was protected by earlier orders of the High Court (28.02.2011) and Supreme Court (26.08.2013).
The plaintiff (Suresh Chand) remained ex parte before the Supreme Court.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
(a) Agreement to Sell under Section 54, TPA
The Court reaffirmed that an Agreement to Sell does not create ownership or any interest in immovable property. Section 54 of the TPA explicitly states that a sale of immovable property valued over ₹100 can only be made by a registered instrument.
Citing Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 1 SCC 656 and Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam (1977) 3 SCC 247, the Court held that an agreement for sale merely gives the buyer a right to seek specific performance, but does not transfer ownership.
Hence, the plaintiff’s reliance on an unregistered Agreement to Sell could not vest title in him.
(b) General Power of Attorney (GPA)
The Court elaborated that a Power of Attorney is an instrument creating an agency relationship, not a transfer of property. Even an irrevocable GPA or one authorizing sale does not convey ownership rights.
Citing State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77 and Suraj Lamp (supra), the Court reiterated that the GPA is merely a document of convenience, enabling the grantee to act on behalf of the principal, but not to own the property.
The GPA in the present case only authorized management and leasing, not conveyance — and thus did not confer title.
(c) Registered Will under Section 2(h), Indian Succession Act
The Court clarified that a Will is a posthumous disposition, effective only after the testator’s death, and is revocable during the testator’s lifetime.
Relying on Mathai Samuel v. Eapen Eapen (2012) 13 SCC 80, H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma (AIR 1959 SC 443), and Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023) 9 SCC 734, the Bench emphasized that a Will must:
- Be attested by two or more witnesses;
- Be proved by at least one attesting witness;
- Be free from suspicious circumstances.
The plaintiff failed to examine any attesting witness. Moreover, the Will disinherited three other children without any explanation, a suspicious circumstance the plaintiff failed to dispel.
Therefore, the Will was held invalid and unproved, and could not confer ownership.
(d) Section 53A — Doctrine of Part Performance
The Court discussed the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the TPA, relying on Nathulal v. Phoolchand (1969) 3 SCC 120.
To claim its benefit, the transferee must:
- Possess a written contract signed by the transferor;
- Have taken possession in part performance;
- Have performed or be willing to perform contractual obligations.
Since the plaintiff himself filed a suit for possession, it was evident he was not in possession of the property. Thus, he could not invoke Section 53A’s protection.
(e) Succession and Final Relief
Upon the death of Kundan Lal, succession opened to all his Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, as the alleged Will failed. Therefore, each legal heir, including the appellant, held a share in the property.
The Court upheld the bona fide rights of Respondent No. 2 (purchaser from the appellant) only to the extent of the appellant’s share.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment.
It held that:
- An Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, or Receipt does not confer ownership in property.
- A Will must be duly proved as per statutory requirements; mere registration does not validate it.
- Doctrine of part performance cannot apply when the claimant is not in possession.
- Property devolves upon all Class-I heirs as intestate succession.
- Rights of bona fide purchasers from one co-owner remain protected to the extent of that co-owner’s share.
The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that ownership of immovable property can only be transferred through a duly stamped and registered sale deed as per Section 54 of the TPA.
FAQs:
1. Can an agreement to sell transfer ownership of property in India?
No. An agreement to sell only creates a contractual right to obtain a registered sale deed. Ownership transfers only upon execution and registration of a valid sale deed as required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
2. Does a registered Power of Attorney grant ownership rights over property?
No. A Power of Attorney merely authorizes another person to act on behalf of the principal. It does not, by itself, create or transfer ownership rights in the property.
3. Is registration of a Will enough to make it legally valid?
No. Registration alone does not validate a Will. It must be duly attested by two witnesses, and at least one attesting witness must testify in court to prove its execution and remove any suspicious circumstances.
4. What is the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the TPA?
It protects a transferee who has taken possession in part performance of a written contract from being evicted by the transferor. However, it does not transfer ownership and is available only if possession and performance are proved.
5. How does property devolve when a Will is found invalid?
If a Will is not validly proved, the property devolves through intestate succession among the Class-I legal heirs of the deceased as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.