Ownership Claims Based on GPA and Will
Ramesh Chand (D) v Suresh Chand
Citation: 2025 INSC 1059
The Supreme Court held that immovable property cannot be transferred through an agreement to sell, general power of attorney, receipt or even a registered will without a registered sale deed
Decided
Parties
Appellant: Ramesh Chand (Deceased) through LRs
Lawyers: Advocate S. Mahendran
Respondents: Suresh Chand
Lawyers: Advocate Rekha Pandey
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012
Next Hearing:
Last Updated: September 17, 2025
TAGS: Hindu Succession Act, Property Law
Key Issues
Does an agreement to sell, general power of attorney (GPA), receipt of consideration and registered will confer valid title to immovable property?
Can the plaintiff invoke Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with part performance, without being in possession of the property?
What rights accrue to the parties on the opening of succession after the death of the owner?
Case Description
The property in question was a house at Ambedkar Basti, Delhi, once owned by Kundan Lal. One son, Suresh Chand, said he became the owner based on papers his father signed in May 1996. Kundan Lal had signed an agreement to sell, a general power of attorney, an affidavit, a receipt and a registered will. His brother Ramesh Chand contested this. He maintained that their father had handed the property to him orally back in 1973 and that he had been living there ever since. This dispute brought up the issue of whether instruments such as the agreement to sell, power of attorney, affidavit, receipt and will could together confer ownership rights, or whether, after Kundan Lal’s death, the property would devolve on all his legal heirs by succession.
High Court’s decision
Before the Additional District Judge, Suresh Chand obtained a decree for possession and mesne profits against Ramesh Chand. The court dismissed Ramesh Chand’s counterclaim which challenged the documents relied on by Suresh Chand.
Ramesh Chand appealed to the Delhi High Court. The High Court confirmed the Trial Court’s decree in April 2012, finding that the GPA, agreement to sell and will executed in 1996 conferred title in favour of Suresh Chand.
Aggrieved, Ramesh Chand approached the Supreme Court. On 31 October 2011, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of its ruling in Suraj Lamp & Industries v State of Haryana (Date of judgement: 11 October 2011), which clarified that GPA and agreement to sell transactions are not conveyances.
On remand, the Delhi High Court reheard the case but ruled in favour of Suresh Chand again. Ramesh Chand appealed before the Supreme Court once more, leading to the present decision.
In the Supreme Court
The Court examined whether the documents relied on by Suresh Chand conferred ownership. The Court held that an agreement to sell, GPA, affidavit and receipt did not amount to a deed of conveyance under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act). The will had not been proved in accordance with law and was “surrounded by suspicious circumstances” since there was no evidence of estrangement between Kundan Lal and his other children
The Court found that Suresh Chand was not in possession and therefore could not invoke Section 53A of the TP Act which deals with part performance. It held that on the death of Kundan Lal, succession opened in favour of all Class I heirs under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The rights of the second respondent, who purchased half the property from Ramesh Chand, were protected only to the extent of Ramesh Chand’s share. The suit filed by Suresh Chand was dismissed.