SC: GPA/Agreement to Sell/Will Do Not Confer Title – Property to Be Inherited by Legal Heirs
Case Name: Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh Chand & Another
Citation: 2025 INSC 1059; Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012
Date of Judgment: 1 September 2025
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Held: The Supreme Court held that documents such as an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA), affidavits, receipts, and even a Will, unless duly proved in accordance with the law, do not confer ownership rights in immovable property. The Court emphasized that only a registered sale deed, as mandated under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, is capable of transferring title. Since the Will propounded by the plaintiff had not been proved and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it could not be relied upon. Consequently, upon the death of Kundan Lal, the property devolved upon all his Class-I legal heirs.
Summary: The dispute concerned property situated at Ambedkar Basti, Delhi, originally owned by Kundan Lal, the father of the plaintiff, Suresh Chand, and the defendant, Ramesh Chand. The plaintiff asserted that he had become the owner on the basis of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, affidavit, receipt of consideration, and a registered Will dated 16 May 1996 allegedly executed in his favour by his father. He further claimed that the defendant was only a trespasser who had wrongfully dealt with the property. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the property had been orally transferred to him as early as 1973, and that he had remained in continuous possession ever since. He challenged the authenticity and validity of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff and argued that they did not create title in law. During the course of proceedings, the defendant sold half of the property to a bona fide purchaser, who also sought protection of his rights.
The Supreme Court examined the legal effect of the documents. It reiterated that an agreement to sell does not, by itself, convey ownership but merely gives the purchaser a right to seek specific performance. Similarly, a General Power of Attorney is only an instrument of agency and does not transfer title to the property. The Court scrutinized the Will dated 16 May 1996, noting that it had not been proved as required under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Further, the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances as Kundan Lal had four children but had inexplicably bequeathed the entire property only to the plaintiff, without any indication of estrangement from the others. The Court held that mere registration of the Will could not cure these deficiencies. The affidavit and receipt of consideration produced by the plaintiff were also found inadequate to confer ownership since the law recognizes only a duly executed and registered sale deed as transferring title.
On the issue of part-performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court held that the plaintiff could not invoke the doctrine as he was never in possession of the suit property and had in fact instituted the present suit to recover possession. Since neither the Will nor the other documents could establish title in the plaintiff, succession opened upon the death of Kundan Lal, and the property devolved upon all his Class-I legal heirs in accordance with the law of inheritance.
Decision: In light of the above findings, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court which had upheld the plaintiff’s claim. It dismissed the suit for possession, mesne profits, declaration, and injunction filed by the plaintiff. The Court further clarified that the sale made by the defendant in favour of a bona fide purchaser would be protected only to the extent of the defendant’s share in the property. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the plaintiff’s claim was rejected, and the property was held to devolve upon all the legal heirs of Kundan Lal. No order as to costs was made.