An AGPA does not transfer title but can create equitable rights; dismissal of the plaint upheld as it discloses a valid cause of action based on part performance.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 27.12.2024 in I.A. No.634 of 2023 in O.S. No.461 of 2023, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking (i) declaration of title, (ii) perpetual injunction and (iii) cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 25.05.2022 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, as null and void.

3. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), praying for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred.

Facts and Pleadings:

4.1. The relevant facts, as pleaded in the plaint, may be briefly noted. The Revision Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of open Plot No.200 in Survey No.139, admeasuring 184.44 square yards, situated at Rekurthy Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the subject plot”). On 08.03.2006, Defendant No.1 offered to sell the subject plot to the husband of the respondent/plaintiff for a valid consideration of Rs.38,000/-. Upon receipt of the said consideration, a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (“AGPA”) was executed in favour of the plaintiff’s husband, and possession of the plot was delivered. It is the case of the respondent that she and her husband have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property ever since, and that a residential house was subsequently constructed thereon. After the death of her husband on 07.03.2012, the respondent continued in possession, and the property was mutated in the municipal records and she has been regularly paying property and municipal taxes.

4.2. It is further averred that, with an intent to unlawfully reclaim the subject plot, Revision Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 allegedly conspired and executed a fabricated registered gift deed in favour of Revision Petitioner No.2/Defendant No.2 on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, on 19.11.2022, the revision petitioners/defendants allegedly attempted to forcibly dispossess the respondent. Though such attempt was resisted, the petitioners purportedly declared their intention to take over the property and sought to alienate it to third parties, thereby infringing upon the respondent’s rights. Consequently, the present suit was filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

Contentions of the Parties:

5.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that the registered AGPA was admittedly executed on 08.03.2006, whereas the respondent’s husband passed away on 07.03.2012, and the impugned gift deed was executed between Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 25.05.2022. It is submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has not pleaded that title was transferred under the AGPA. In terms of Section 17 read with Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908, ownership of immovable property can pass only through a duly executed and registered conveyance deed, and no such document exists in this case.

5.2. It was further argued that it is well settled that an AGPA does not convey title, as held in M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448; Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimanth Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner , (2007) 6 SCC 186 and Jitendra V. v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802.

5.3. The learned counsel further submitted that any claim for declaration of title based on the AGPA ought to have been made within the period of limitation, and that the suit, instituted nearly nineteen years after execution of the AGPA, is ex facie barred by limitation. The trial Court, it was argued, failed to consider this vital aspect and erred in dismissing the petition. Hence, interference of