Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10047

VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ
SHAKEEL AHMED – Appellant
Versus
SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1598 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not mentioned
For the Respondents: Not mentioned

Possession of immovable property cannot be adjudicated without registered title documents, as unregistered agreements lack enforceability under law.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17 and 49 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Unregistered documents - No title over immovable properties can be conferred based on unregistered Agreement to Sell or General Power of Attorney; such documents do not confer enforceable rights in court - Suit for possession cannot be maintained without valid title. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)

(B) Possession and Mesne Profits - The respondent could not maintain the suit for possession against the appellant who was in possession of the property, even as a licensee, without the requisite documents conferring title. (Paras 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellant contested a suit for possession based on unregistered documents, claiming the property through an oral gift (Hiba), which was rejected by the courts.

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the decree of possession, relying on customary documents without enforceability under law.

Issues: Whether the unregistered documents constituted valid title for possession; whether the suit was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The courts ruled based on the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act that unregistered documents lack the necessary legal enforceability to claim ownership, reaffirming the principle that actual possession necessitates valid registration.

Result: The impugned judgment is set aside and the suit is dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

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. (!)

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?

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

VIKRAM NATH,J.

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.

2. The appellant is defendant in the suit for possession and mesne profits instituted by the respondent with respect to the property in Digitally signed by Jatinder Kaur Date: 2023.11.23 13:49:14 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified question. The suit was filed on the basis of a Power of Attorney, an agreement to sell, an affidavit and a will executed in favour of the respondent. The appellant, admittedly, was in possession of the property in question. The suit was contested on several grounds that the appellant was the owner of the property having received the same on the basis of a Hiba (oral gift) from its owner Laiq Ahmed his own brother.

Secondly, that the suit was not maintainable as none of the documents on the basis of which the suit was filed were neither admissible nor enforceable under law. Both parties led evidence - oral and documentary. The Trial Court framed as many as eleven issues, which read as follows:

“1. Whether the plaintiff has locus-standi to file the suit? OPP

2. Whether it is collusive suit of the plaintiff and the defendant’s brother, if so, its consequences? BPD

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, if so, whom and its consequences? BPD

4. Whether the suit is barred by provision of Order II Rule 2 CPC for want of suit for declaration? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff came to Court without clean hands by suppressing material facts, if so, its consequences? OPD

6. Whether the defendant was licencee in the suit property and it was terminated by notice dated 23.01.2008 by plaintiff’s predecessor in interest? OPP

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of suit property, as prayed in prayer clause (a), against the defendant? OPP

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in prayer clause (b), against the defendant? OPP

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of damages of Rs.2,10,000/- as prayed in prayer clause (c), against the defendant? OPP

10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month, as prayed in prayer clause (c), against the defendant, if so, for what period? OPP 11. Relief.”

3. Findings recorded by the Trial Court were that all the issues were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent except issue no.8 and decree for possession along with mesne profits was granted.

4. While in regular appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court confirmed the finding with regard to the claim of the appellant regarding Hiba in his favour and held that the appellant had failed to prove the same. With respect to the other argument regarding suit being maintained on the basis of an unregistered document, the High Court, although in principle agreed but proceeded to uphold the decree of possession on the ground that the respondent had filed the suit as an Attorney for and on behalf of its owner Laiq Ahmed and that Laiq Ahmed was not objecting to the respondent seeking possession of the suit property. On this sole ground, it confirmed the decree of possession and dismissed the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

5.1. The Court below erred in decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits on the basis of unregistered documents namely Agreement to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document