Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 13404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
SH. HARMEET SINGH KOHLI VS. SAUMYA ROY
RFA 570/2026 | CM APPL. 37645/2026 | CM APPL. 37646/2026 | CM APPL. 37647/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. B. Yadav
For the Respondents: None
Unregistered Agreements to Sell, GPAs, and Wills do not convey ownership of immovable property, nor do they protect possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, following the 2001 amendment to the Registration Act.
Headnote:The case involves the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically Order VII Rule 11, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The appellants sought a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding a property based on an unregistered Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, and a Will executed by their father. The trial court rejected the plaint, finding that these documents did not constitute a valid conveyance of title and that the suit was barred by law as the property was already attached in execution proceedings. The primary issue was whether unregistered documents such as an Agreement to Sell and GPA could establish ownership or protect possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court reasoned that immovable property can only be transferred through a registered conveyance deed, and unregistered documents are merely contractual agreements that do not create ownership rights against third parties. Furthermore, any challenge to a court-ordered attachment must be raised via objections under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rather than a separate civil suit. There is no merit in the Appeal, which is hereby dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the property claim and the filing of the suit for declaration and injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. rejection of the plaint due to lack of valid title and statutory bar under order xxi rule 58 cpc. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. procedural history of the review application and the grounds for the current regular appeal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. unregistered documents do not convey ownership or protect possession under section 53a tpa. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. proper remedy for challenging attachment is through execution proceedings, not a separate suit. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
O R D E R
CM APPL. 37646/2026
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application is disposed of.
RFA 570/2026
3. Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), has been filed on behalf of the Appellants, to challenge the Judgment dated 15.11.2025 whereby the Suit filed by the Appellants for Declaration and Permanent Injunction, was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with the cost of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited with DLSA(West).
4. The Plaintiffs had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 1019/25 seeking Declaration of their ownership and Permanent Injunction with respect to property bearing no. 6A, area measuring 50 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 9/9/2, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village, Tilangpur Kotla, New Delhi- 110043 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Suit Property’).
5. The facts in brief, are that the erstwhile owner of the suit property was Plaintiff’s father, Sh. Satya Narayan. He had purchased the suit property from the original allottee, Smt. Suman Lata. She had instituted Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against him, which was amicably settled on 15.04.2025, in the Mediation Centre, whereby it was agreed that Sh. Satya Narayan would pay a sum of ₹6,00,000/- to Smt. Suman Lata, and in consideration thereof, Smt. Suman Lata would execute the requisite title documents in his favour.
6. Sh. Satya Narayan was unable to arrange the settlement amount from his own resources and, the Plaintiffs agreed to provide the requisite funds on the understanding that the suit property would ultimately be transferred in their favour. Pursuant thereto, Smt. Suman Lata executed the title documents in favour of Sh. Satya Narayan on 02.05.2025. On the very same day, Sh. Satya Narayan, executed all the necessary documents, including a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, and Deed of Will, in favour of the Plaintiffs, for a consideration of ₹6,50,000/-.
7. Plaintiff thereafter, purchased the suit property from his father, Sh. Satya Narayan, for a total sale consideration of ₹6,50,000/-, vide documents dated 02.05.2025.
8. According to the Plaintiffs, upon execution of the aforesaid documents and delivery of possession, they became the lawful owners and got the possession of the suit property and have since then, been enjoying all rights and interests therein.
9. The Plaintiffs further averred that in the first week of October, 2025, the Defendant accompanied with certain other persons, visited the suit property, whereupon the Plaintiffs were informed for the first time, that a Warrant of Attachment dated 09.05.2025, had been issued by the Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi, in respect of the suit property.
10. The Plaintiffs contended that they had never entered into any transaction or dealing, with the Defendant. It is alleged that the Defendant, taking advantage of his cordial relations with the Plaintiffs’ father, had misused the process of law and laid claim over the suit property, to the detriment of the Plaintiffs’ rights.
11. Aggrieved by the issuance of the Warrant of Attachment and interference with their lawful ownership and possession, the Plaintiff filed
