In a detailed judgment delivered on October 8, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the legal heirs of late Konkanala Suryaprakasha Rao against Kampa Bhaskara Rao and others. The division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam upheld the lower court's decree ordering delivery of possession to the decree-holder, citing that the alleged transfer of property under a General Power of Attorney (GPA) did not confer ownership.
The Court emphasized that the law on GPA-based sales, as laid down in the Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012), remained the guiding precedent and that such transactions "do not convey any title in immovable property."
Background
The dispute stemmed from a 2006 agreement of sale between the original plaintiff, Kampa Bhaskara Rao, and the defendant. The Ongole District Court had decreed the suit for specific performance in 2017, allowing Bhaskara Rao to get the sale deed executed through court after depositing ₹16 lakh in balance consideration.
While the decree reached finality, complications arose during execution. When Bhaskara Rao sought delivery of the property, the legal heirs of the late Suryaprakasha Rao stepped in, claiming that they had purchased the same property through a GPA-cum-Sale Agreement dated January 17, 2007 - executed by the same defendant who had earlier agreed to sell to Bhaskara Rao.
The appellants contended that the GPA was accompanied by possession and consideration of ₹15 lakh and that they had been running a bar and restaurant on the premises since 2008 under lawful lease agreements.
Their claim was rejected by the VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, on August 5, 2024, prompting the present appeal.
Court's Observations
The High Court carefully revisited the timeline and documents, noting that the agreement of sale in favor of Bhaskara Rao dated July 1, 2006 was prior in time to the GPA executed in January 2007.
Justice Tilhari, delivering the main judgment, remarked:
"It is not in dispute that Ex.A1 (the 2006 sale agreement) precedes Ex.P1 (the 2007 GPA). There is nothing on record to show that Ex.A1 was ante-dated."
The bench pointed out that the Suraj Lamp judgment clearly laid down that a power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer and that "no right, title, or interest" passes without a registered sale deed. The appellants reliance on possession and mutation entries was found "untenable," as mutation does not establish ownership but merely facilitates payment of land revenue.
"A GPA, even if executed before the Suraj Lamp ruling, does not by itself convey ownership. It remains an agreement of sale at best," the bench reiterated.
On the contention that Suraj Lamp applied only prospectively, the judges disagreed:
"The legal position declared in Suraj Lamp was a reiteration of existing law, not a new one. Therefore, its effect is retrospective."
The Court also dismissed the appellants’ argument that payment of taxes or running a licensed business on the premises amounted to ownership.
"Such acts may show possession, not proprietary title," the judges clarified.
Decision
After weighing the arguments, the bench concluded that the appellants had no legal right to resist or obstruct the delivery of possession to the decree-holder.
"The Special Power of Attorney dated 17.01.2007 does not create any right, title or interest in favour of the first appellant," the Court declared.
It further held that the 2017 Ongole decree - which had resulted in a court-executed sale deed in February 2018 - stood valid and enforceable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
The judges closed the case with a final observation that the appellants claim was "a belated attempt to defeat a concluded judicial sale" and could not stand in law.
Case Title: Konkanala Suryaprakasha Rao (Died) & Others vs. Kampa Bhaskara Rao & Another
Case Number: First Appeal No. 492 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 08 October 2025
Counsel for Appellants:
- Sri P. Rajasekhar
- Assisted by Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi
Counsel for Respondents (Decree Holders):
- Sri K. V. Vijay Kumar