Case Note: Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1059 (Supreme Court of India)
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: 1 September 2025

Facts

• The dispute concerned property at Ambedkar Basti, Delhi, originally owned by late Shri Kundan Lal.

• The plaintiff (Suresh Chand) claimed ownership on the basis of:

  • Agreement to Sell (16.05.1996)

  • General Power of Attorney

  • Affidavit and Receipt of consideration

  • Registered Will (16.05.1996) allegedly executed by his father.

• The defendant (Ramesh Chand, plaintiff’s brother) claimed that their father had orally transferred the property to him in 1973 and that he had remained in continuous possession. He further sold half the property to a third party (Defendant No. 2).

• The Trial Court and High Court decreed in favor of Suresh Chand. Ramesh Chand appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether documents such as Agreement to Sell, GPA, Receipt, and Will conferred valid ownership rights on the plaintiff?

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

3. How should the property devolve after the death of Shri Kundan Lal?

Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.

Reasoning

1. Agreement to Sell

• An agreement to sell is not a sale and does not itself create ownership rights.

• Ownership in immovable property (above ₹100) can only be transferred by a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

2. General Power of Attorney

• A GPA only creates an agency relationship and authorizes acts on behalf of the grantor.

• It does not, by itself, transfer ownership rights.

3. Will

• A Will takes effect only upon the testator’s death and must be proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

• In this case, the Will was not proved through attesting witnesses, and it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances (exclusion of three children without explanation).

• Hence, it was held invalid.

4. Section 53A of the TP Act

• The doctrine of part performance applies only if the transferee has taken or retained possession under the agreement.

• Since the plaintiff himself sought possession in his suit, he was not in possession, and thus could not claim protection.

Outcome

• The property of late Shri Kundan Lal devolves equally among all his Class I legal heirs under succession law.

• The rights of Defendant No. 2 (purchaser from Ramesh Chand) were protected, but only to the extent of Ramesh Chand’s lawful share.

Significance

• Reaffirms that only a registered sale deed conveys ownership in immovable property.

• GPA, Agreement to Sell, or Affidavit cannot substitute a sale deed.

• Proof of Will must strictly comply with legal requirements.

• Reinforces the limited scope of Section 53A (doctrine of part performance).

Endnotes (Case Law Cited)

1. Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank and Others, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1157.

2. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656.

3. Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam, (1977) 3 SCC 247.

4. Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra, AIR 1967 SC 744.

5. Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, (2004) 8 SCC 614.

6. State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77.

7. Mathai Samuel v. Eapen Eapen (Dead) by LRs., (2012) 13 SCC 80.

8. H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443.

9. Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, (2023) 9 SCC 734.

10. Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277.

11. Nathulal v. Phoolchand, (1969) 3 SCC 120.

Download Download PDF of the judgement in RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS. VERSUS SURESH CHAND AND ANR. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6377 OF 2012 (2025 INSC 1059) RAMESH CHAND vs SURESH CHAND