VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ
SHAKEEL AHMED – Appellant
Versus
SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN – Respondent
Question 1? What is the effect of unregistered documents on title to immovable property and in possession suits? Question 2? What is required for a valid title to confer possession in respect of immovable property under the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act? Question 3? What are the grounds on which a suit for possession can be maintained or dismissed when the basis is an unregistered document?
Key Points: - The judgment holds that no title to immovable property can be conferred on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or unregistered General Power of Attorney. (!) - The Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act require registration for enforceable rights; unregistered documents cannot confer title or be used to sustain a suit for possession. (!) (!) - Even if documents were registered, they could at best support specific relief (e.g., specific performance), not title to ownership. (!) - The appellant’s possession could not be decreed based on the unregistered documents; the suit failed for lack of valid title. (!) (!) - The High Court’s reliance on the respondent acting as an Attorney on behalf of Laiq Ahmed was not upheld; the plaint did not show the respondent sued in a representative capacity. (!) - The Court reaffirmed that no right, title, or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. (!) - The judgment cites Suraj Lamps & Industries and other authorities to support the necessity of registration for title transfer. (!) - The impugned judgment is set aside; the suit for possession and mesne profits is dismissed. (!) (!) - There shall be no order as to costs. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellate review of lower court's decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments concerning the validity of unregistered documents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. registration is essential for property titles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. appeal allowed; suit dismissed. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER
1. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.191 of 2013 between Shakeel Ahmed and Syed Akhlaq Hussain, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits has been affirmed.
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, if so, whom
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.