SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS: ONLY REGISTERED SALE DEEDS CAN TRANSFER PROPERTY TITLE – GPA, AGREEMENT TO SELL AND UNPROVED WILLS INVALID
Introduction
The Supreme Court Judgment in Ramesh Chand (D) through Legal Representatives v. Suresh Chand and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012) delivered on September 1, 2025, by the Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta, stands as a definitive pronouncement on property transfer law in India. This ruling definitively settles the legal position that documents such as General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell and even registered Wills cannot confer valid title to immovable property without a registered sale deed. The Judgment’s significance extends beyond mere property disputes between siblings, as it reinforces fundamental principles of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and clarifies the evidentiary standards required for establishing ownership rights.
Factual Background
The dispute originated from a property located at Ambedkar Basti, Delhi, originally owned by Shri Kundan Lal, who had four children including the Plaintiff Suresh Chand and defendant Ramesh Chand (deceased, represented through legal representatives). Following Kundan Lal’s death on April 10, 1997, Suresh Chand filed a suit seeking possession, mesne profits, declaration of title, and mandatory injunction against his brother Ramesh Chand. Suresh Chand’s claim to ownership was based on multiple documents allegedly executed by their father, including a General Power of Attorney, an Agreement to Sell, an Affidavit, a Receipt acknowledging consideration of Rs. 1,40,000, and a registered Will bequeathing the property exclusively to him. He contended that Ramesh Chand was initially a licensee who became a trespasser after the alleged purchase, and that Ramesh had wrongfully sold half the property to a third party (Respondent No. 2).
Ramesh Chand vehemently contested these claims, asserting that the property was orally transferred to him by their father in July 1973 and that he had been in continuous, uninterrupted possession since then. Significantly, he pointed out that during the 24-year period from 1973 to 1997, their father never filed any ejectment proceedings nor served any eviction notice. Ramesh also highlighted a crucial inconsistency: in an earlier suit, Suresh Chand had admitted that their father Kundan Lal was the owner of the property, contradicting his claim of having purchased it on May 16, 1996.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of Suresh Chand, dismissing Ramesh’s counterclaim. The Delhi High Court initially upheld this decision, but after a Supreme Court remand in 2011 regarding a legal precedent relied upon, the High Court again dismissed Ramesh’s appeal on April 9, 2012, leading to the present Supreme Court Appeal.
Court’s Decision and Analysis
The Supreme Court systematically examined three critical questions: whether the impugned documents conferred valid title, whether the Plaintiff could claim benefit under Section 53A, and what relief the parties were entitled to.
Agreement to Sell – No Transfer of Title
The Court emphatically reiterated the fundamental distinction between a “sale” and a “contract for sale” under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Citing Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Court held that an agreement to sell “does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property”. The Judgment clarified that for immovable property valued above Rs. 100, three mandatory requirements must be fulfilled: the transfer must be in writing, properly attested, and registered. Since no sale deed was executed in Suresh Chand’s favor, the agreement to sell merely entitled him to seek specific performance but did not create any ownership interest.
General Power of Attorney – Agency, Not Ownership
The Court held that a GPA is not an instrument of transfer. GPA creates an agency relationship. Referencing State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77, the Judgment emphasized that a power of attorney enables the grantee to act on behalf of the grantor but cannot be used for the grantee’s own benefit. Even if the GPA contained irrevocable clauses or authorized property sale, it would not transform into a conveyance deed.
In this specific case, the GPA only authorized property management activities like letting and mortgaging but was silent on conveyance, further reinforcing that no title could be conferred.
Will – Suspicious Circumstances and Lack of Proper Proof
Citing H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Ors. AIR 1959 SC 443 and Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023) 9 SCC 734, the Judgment outlined that Wills must satisfy both execution requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and evidentiary standards under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Mere registration of a Will does not establish its validity when suspicious circumstances remain unexplained. The failure to examine attesting witnesses as mandated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act rendered the Will legally insufficient.
Section 53A Protection Not Available
Regarding the Doctrine of Part Performance under Section 53A, the Court relied on Nathulal v. Phoolchand (1969) 3 SCC 120, which require the transferee to be in possession as part performance of the contract. Since Suresh Chand had filed a suit for possession, this clearly demonstrated he was not in possession of the property, thereby disqualifying him from claiming Section 53A protection. The Judgment reinforced that Section 53A provides only a “shield against the transferor” and cannot be invoked by someone not in possession.
Conclusion
This ruling establishes that only registered sale deeds can transfer title in immovable property. The Judgment serves as a stern reminder that documents like GPAs, Agreements to Sell and Wills, regardless of registration, cannot substitute for proper procedures mandated by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Judgment reinforces the importance of following statutory requirements rather than relying on alternative documentation that may appear convenient but lacks legal validity. The Court’s emphasis on strict evidentiary standards for Will validation and the limited scope of Section 53A protection will undoubtedly influence future property litigation.
YASH HARI DIXIT
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Videos, titled “Legal Aspects of Exports in India | Export Laws Explained | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the Link below:
Leave a Reply