In a significant property dispute, the Supreme Court examined whether documents such as an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt, and a registered Will could, either individually or collectively, confer valid title under the Transfer of Property Act. The core issue before the Court was whether such instruments, absent possession, could create ownership rights in immovable property or whether statutory compliance with Section 54 of the TP Act remained the only lawful mode of transfer. Read on to learn how the Court addressed these questions and clarified the limits of such documents in property transactions.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a dispute over property originally owned by Shri Kundan Lal, father of the Appellant and Respondent. The Respondent claimed ownership on the basis of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, and a registered Will. He alleged that the Appellant, initially a licensee, turned into a trespasser after the transfer and wrongfully sold half the property to the Respondent. On this basis, he filed a Suit before the Additional District Judge, Delhi, seeking possession, mesne profits, declaration of title, and return of original documents. The Appellant contested, asserting that the property had been orally transferred to him by his father in July 1973, and filed a counterclaim for declaring the Respondent’s documents invalid. He also pointed to an earlier suit, later withdrawn, where the father had been admitted as the owner. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent, upholding the documents and dismissing the counterclaim. The Appellant’s Regular First Appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Delhi High Court after a remand by the Supreme Court in 2011. Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the documents and the conferment of title.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that documents like Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, Receipt, or Will did not confer ownership without possession, and the original title deeds remained with him. He maintained that the Will was not proved as per law, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable without delivery of possession, and that a Will is not a sale instrument under Section 54, which requires a registered deed. He further contended that the attesting witnesses failed to prove execution of the Respondent’s documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Indian Succession Act, 1925. Reference was made to the earlier suit, where the Respondent admitted their father as owner, contradicting the present claim of purchase. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent procured documents through misrepresentation and stressed that he had been in uninterrupted possession since 1973, with no challenge from their father until his death in 1997.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that he had purchased 50% share of the suit property from the Appellant. He pointed out that his rights as a bona fide purchaser in possession had already been protected by the High Court through an order, and further by this Court in its interim order in the present appeal. Accordingly, he urged that his rights be safeguarded in the final adjudication as well.
Observation of the Court:
The Court examined whether documents such as an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA), Receipt of Consideration, Affidavit, and a registered Will could confer valid title over immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act), and whether the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A applied.
The Court reiterated, while referring to Section 54 of the TP Act, that a "sale" requires a registered instrument for immovable property valued over Rs. 100, emphasizing that ‘Sale’ is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised and must be executed through a written, attested, and registered deed. The Court clarified, while referring to the case Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director v. State of Haryana and Another that an Agreement to Sell "does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property," and at best enables specific performance but does not transfer title.
On GPA, the Court observed that it creates an agency and is not an instrument of transfer, stating, "A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property," and even if irrevocable, it does not convey ownership. Regarding the Will, the Court stressed the requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, noting that it must be proved by at least one attesting witness and is revocable during the testator's lifetime, with no title passing until death.
The Court found the Will unproven due to a lack of discussion on attestation, suspicious circumstances (exclusion of three other children without explanation), and held that mere registration does not validate it. The Receipt and Affidavit were dismissed as they do not constitute a conveyance under Section 54. On Section 53A, the Court held it inapplicable without possession by the transferee, as the plaintiff's suit for possession indicated he lacked it, while referring to the case of Nathulal v. Phoolchand for the essential conditions, including possession in part performance. The Court highlighted that immovable property transfers must strictly comply with statutory modes to avoid invalid transactions, and upon the father's death, succession opened to Class-I heirs absent a valid Will.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the appeal while dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff.
Case Title: Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Suresh Chand and Anr
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012
Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocate for Appellant: AOR S. Mahendran
Advocate for Respondent: AOR Rekha Pandey, Advs. Shiv Prakash Pandey, Raghav Pandey, Gauri Pandey, Sharmishtha Chowdhury
Picture Source :
