Case Analysis: Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Suresh Chand & Anr.
Case Overview
This is a landmark 2025 Supreme Court of India decision that clarifies the legal value of documents like Agreements to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA), and Wills in transferring ownership of property. The Court ruled that these documents, by themselves, do not confer legal title. Only a registered Sale Deed can officially transfer ownership under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Background Facts
Parties: Two brothers, Suresh Chand (Plaintiff) and Ramesh Chand (Defendant No. 1), were fighting over a property in Delhi originally owned by their father, Kundan Lal.
Plaintiff’s Claim (Suresh Chand): He claimed he bought the property from his father in 1996. To prove this, he presented an Agreement to Sell, a General Power of Attorney (GPA), an Affidavit, a Receipt for payment, and a registered Will—all dated the same day.
Defendant’s Claim (Ramesh Chand): He argued the property was orally gifted to him by their father back in 1973 and that he had been living there ever since. He also sold half of the property to a third party (Defendant No. 2).
Lower Courts: The trial court and the High Court initially ruled in favor of Suresh Chand, accepting his documents as proof of ownership. Ramesh Chand appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
1. Do documents like an Agreement to Sell, GPA, Receipt, and a Will legally transfer property ownership?
2. Can the plaintiff claim rights under the “doctrine of part-performance” (Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act)?
3. What is the final relief for the parties involved?
The Supreme Court’s Analysis & Ruling
- On the Validity of the Documents
The Court meticulously analyzed each document presented by Suresh Chand and held that none of them created a legal title in his favor.
Agreement to Sell: The Court reiterated that an agreement to sell is merely a contract for a future sale. It does not transfer ownership. It only gives the buyer the right to go to court and ask for a proper sale deed to be executed (specific performance). Since no actual Sale Deed was ever registered, Suresh Chand did not become the owner.
General Power of Attorney (GPA): The Court clarified that a GPA only creates an agency relationship. It authorizes the holder to manage the property on behalf of the owner but does not transfer any ownership rights to the holder. It is not an instrument of sale.
Registered Will: The Court found serious legal flaws in how the Will was presented. A Will must be proved in court by examining at least one of the attesting witnesses, which was not done here. Furthermore, the Will was surrounded by “suspicious circumstances” as it excluded three of Kundan Lal’s four children without any explanation. Therefore, the Will was declared invalid and could not be used to claim the property.
Affidavit and Receipt: These documents were considered self-serving and, crucially, were not backed by a registered Sale Deed. They could not prove ownership.
- On the Claim of Part-Performance (Section 53A)
Suresh Chand tried to claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which protects a buyer who has taken possession of a property based on a contract. The Court rejected this argument. A key requirement for this protection is that the buyer must be in possession of the property. Since Suresh Chand himself had filed a lawsuit to recover possession from his brother, he admitted he was not in possession. Therefore, he could not claim any benefit under this law.
Final Outcome and Decision
Appeal Allowed: The Supreme Court allowed Ramesh Chand’s appeal.
Plaintiff’s Suit Dismissed: Suresh Chand’s lawsuit for possession and declaration of title was dismissed.
Property Devolves by Succession: Since the father died without a valid Will (intestate), the property passed to all his Class-I legal heirs (his children) as per inheritance laws.
Protection for the Third-Party Buyer: The Court protected the rights of Defendant No. 2, who had bought a 50% share from Ramesh Chand. His right was protected but only to the extent of Ramesh Chand’s share in the property. The legal heirs were left free to pursue their respective shares in the property through appropriate legal proceedings.
By,
Aaradhya Gangula, BALLB.
