Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 21523
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Pulla Karthik, J
Muthamma – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.5250 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vedula Venkata Ramana, Bharadwaj Associates
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration
A General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell do not transfer ownership of immovable property; such transfers require a registered deed of conveyance under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, and agents cannot delegate powers without explicit authorization under Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged the action of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to register a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, treating it as a sale under the Indian Contract Act and the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioners contended that the document was executed by lawful Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA holders who possessed the power to sell and develop the land. The court found that the underlying GPA did not contain explicit authorization for the further delegation of powers to a third party. The primary issue was whether a GPA holder could execute a development agreement without explicit authorization for sub-delegation under Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and whether such an agreement constitutes a transfer of title. The court reasoned that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transfer of ownership in immovable property can only be effected by a registered deed of conveyance, and an agreement to sell or a GPA does not confer ownership or title. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the refusal of registration of a development agreement-cum-gpa on the grounds of improper classification as a sale. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. an agent cannot delegate specific duties to another without explicit authorization under section 37 of the indian contract act. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. immovable property can only be legally transferred via a registered deed of conveyance; gpa and agreements to sell do not confer title. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. dismissal of the writ petition due to lack of merit based on the established legal position on title transfer. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“… declaring that the action of the 1st respondent contained in the endorsement bearing Lr.No.410/Docts/2025, dated 08.12.2025 taking the view that the subject Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 05.12.2025 is to be registered treating it as a sale is arbitrary, illegal and ultra virus the provisions of the Contract Act and the Registration Act and hence the letter dated 08.12.2025 be set aside and direction be issued to the 1st respondent to forthwith register and release the document captioned as Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 05.12.2025 relating to the subject land 2420 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.70 and 85 of Jalpally village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and release the document after due registration and grant such relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the document captioned as ‘Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney’ dated 05.12.2025 executed by the Agreement of Sale (with possession)-cum-General Power of Attorney Holders of petitioners 1 to 9 herein was presented for registration before respondent No.1 and vide impugned endorsement dated 08.12.2025 respondent No.1 has opined that the subject document i.e. Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney cannot be registered unless the same is treated as a sale by itself as per Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act. Questioning the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3) Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, representing M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.
4) Learned senior counsel has submitted that petitioners 10 and 11 are lawful Agreement of Sale (with possession)-cum-General Power of Attorney holders vide registered document No.9410 of 2006 dated 28.04.2006, entered with the owners i.e. petitioners 1 to 9, in respect of large extent of land and under the said document, petitioners 1 to 9 have conferred all the powers to petitioners 10 and 11 even to execute and register sale deeds for and on behalf of petitioners 1 to 9. In exercise of such power, petitioners 10 and 11 have executed the subject document i.e. Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 05.12.2025 in favour of M/s.Drishti Homes by which the development rights, agreement of sale and the power of attorney are all included. Therefore, the impugned endorsement is neither legally acceptable nor factually correct. When once the owner/principal has parted with all his rights in favor of a General Power of Attorney holder in the document captioned as ‘Agreement of Sale (with possession)-cum-General Power of Attorney’ with power to sell, there is no requirement of the principal executing another document in exclusion of the appointed General Power of Attorney. Hence, the holders of Agreement of Sale (with possession)-cum-General Power of Attorney document vide document No.9410/2006 dated 28.04.2006 i.e. petitioners 10 and 11 are fully competent to execute the subject document, which is refused for registration on erroneous grounds. Therefore, the action of respondent No.1 in not registering the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney is not sustainable under
