Legal Updates

Case Title: Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1059
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025

Facts

• The dispute concerned property No. 563, Ambedkar Basti, Delhi, originally owned by late Shri Kundan Lal, father of both parties.

• Plaintiff (Suresh Chand) claimed ownership based on an Agreement to Sell, GPA, affidavit, receipt of consideration, and a registered Will dated 16.05.1996 allegedly executed by Kundan Lal.

• Defendant No.1 (Ramesh Chand, brother of the plaintiff) denied these claims, asserting an oral transfer of the property in 1973 and continuous possession since then. He also sold half of the property to Defendant No.2, a third-party purchaser.

• Plaintiff filed a suit in 1997 for possession, mesne profits, declaration, and injunction.

• The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff; the Delhi High Court upheld the decree.

• Defendant No.1 appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether documents such as Agreement to Sell, GPA, affidavit, receipt, and Will conferred valid title on the plaintiff.

2. Whether the plaintiff could claim benefit under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (doctrine of part performance).

3. What reliefs the parties were entitled to.

Arguments

• Appellant (Defendant No.1):

  • GPA/Agreement to Sell cannot confer ownership.

  • Will was not proved as per law.

  • Plaintiff had earlier admitted father’s ownership in previous litigation.

  • Defendant was in uninterrupted possession since 1973.

• Respondent No.2 (Purchaser):

  • Bought 50% share from Defendant No.1 in good faith.

  • Rights already protected by interim orders of High Court and Supreme Court.

• Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff): Did not appear; proceeded ex parte.

Judgment & Reasoning

1. Validity of Documents:

   • Agreement to Sell – Does not transfer ownership; only creates right to seek specific performance (Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana).

   • GPA – Merely an agency arrangement; not a conveyance of property.

   • Will – Not proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Suspicious circumstances (exclusion of three children) not explained.

   • Receipt/Affidavit – Cannot substitute for a registered sale deed under Section 54 TPA.

2. Section 53A TPA:

   • Plaintiff was not in possession of the property when filing suit; hence cannot claim protection of part performance.

3. Succession:

   • Property devolved upon all Class-I heirs of Kundan Lal upon his death in 1997, since no valid transfer or Will was proved.

4. Purchaser’s Rights:

   • Defendant No.2’s rights protected to the extent of Ramesh Chand’s share in the property.

Decision

• Appeal allowed.

• Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside.

• Plaintiff’s suit dismissed.

• Succession rights of all Class-I heirs of late Kundan Lal recognized.

• Rights of bona fide purchaser (Defendant No.2) protected proportionately.

Significance

• Reinforces that ownership of immovable property can only be transferred through a registered sale deed.

• Clarifies that GPA/Agreement to Sell transactions are not conveyances.

• Emphasizes strict compliance with legal requirements for proof of Wills.

• Reiterates that Section 53A TPA protection is available only when possession is established.

• Ensures balance between heirs’ succession rights and protection of bona fide purchasers.