2025 Supreme(SC) 1286

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Chand And Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012
Decided on : 01-09-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sale – There is difference between a sale deed and an agreement for sale, or a contract for sale.
(2) Part Performance – Unless transferee in instrument of agreement to sale is able to prove that he has been in possession of suit property, no benefit u/s 53A of T.P. Act will be given.
(3) Power of attorney is not a sale.
(4) Proof of execution of Will – Mere fact that Will was registered will not grant validity to the document.

Headnote:

(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Sale – There is difference between a sale deed and an agreement for sale, or a contract for sale – A contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between parties – While a sale is a transfer of ownership; a contract for sale is merely a document creating a right to obtain another document, namely a registered sale deed to complete the transaction of sale of an immovable property – Section 54 in its definition of sale does not include an agreement of sale and neither confers any proprietary rights in favour of transferee nor by itself create any interest or charge in property – If after entering into a contract for sale of property, seller without any reasonable excuse avoids executing a sale deed, buyer can proceed to file a suit for specific performance of contract. (Para 15)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – Agreement to Sell – Part Performance – Suit for possession, mesne profits, declaration and mandatory injunction – Suit decreed by Courts below in favour of respondent-plaintiff – Plaintiff claims that there is only an agreement to sell, and there is no sale deed executed in his favour by father – This document does not confer a valid title on plaintiff as it is not a deed of conveyance as per Section 54 of TP Act – At best, it only enables plaintiff to seek for specific performance for execution of a sale deed and does not create interest or charge on suit property – It is highly unlikely that a father would grant his entire property to one of his children, at the cost of three others, without there being any evidence of estrangement between father and children – This suspicious circumstance surrounding Will has not been removed by plaintiff either – As such, Will propounded by plaintiff though registered would not confer any valid title on plaintiff either – Unless transferee in instrument of agreement to sale is able to prove that he has been in possession of suit property, no benefit u/s 53A will be given – Very fact that plaintiff has filed present suit for possession, along with other reliefs, shows that on the date of filing of suit, plaintiff was not in possession of entire suit property – Since there was no possession with plaintiff, he cannot derive any benefit under doctrine of Part-Possession – Impugned judgment set aside and suit of plaintiff dismissed. (Paras 17, 27, 31 and 35)

(C) Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 – Section 2 – Power of attorney – Power of attorney is not a sale – A sale involves transfer of all rights in property in favour of transferee but a power of attorney simply authorises grantee to do certain acts with respect to property including if grantor permits to do certain acts with respect to property including authority to sell property – Power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby grantor authorizes grantee to do acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on grantor as if done by him – It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law – A General Power of Attorney does not ipso facto constitute an instrument of transfer of an immovable property even where some clauses are introduced in it, holding it to be irrevocable or authorizing attorney holder to effect sale of immovable property on behalf of grantor – It would not ipso facto change character of document transforming it into a conveyance deed. (Paras 18 and 19)

(D) Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Proof of execution of Will – In order to rely upon a Will, same has to be proved in accordance with law – A Will has to be attested by two witnesses, and either of two attesting witnesses have to be examined by Propounder of Will – Mere fact that Will was registered will not grant validity to the document. (Para 27)

Facts of the case:

Appellants are aggrieved by judgment dated 9th April, 2012, passed by High Court of Delhi whereby Regular First Appeal No. 358/2000 filed by them against judgment and decree dated 11th May, 2000 came to be dismissed and judgment and decree passed in Suit No. 613/1997 by Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing suit for possession, mesne profits, declaration, mandatory injunction filed by Respondent No. 1, who was plaintiff, came to be confirmed, by dismissing the counterclaim for declaration filed by the Appellant has been affirmed.

Findings of Court:

Will dated 16.05.1996 propounded by plaintiff having been held not proved and as such class-I legal heirs of deceased Shri Kundan Lal would be entitled to share in suit schedule property.

Result : Appeal allowed.