The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012 (Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs. vs. Suresh Chand & Anr.), set aside the Delhi High Court’s 2012 ruling in a long-running family property dispute.
The case involved a house (Property No. 563, Ambedkar Basti, Delhi), originally owned by Kundan Lal, father of both the appellant (Ramesh Chand) and the respondent (Suresh Chand).
- Suresh Chand (plaintiff) claimed ownership based on a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, and a registered Will dated 16 May 1996.
- He argued that Ramesh Chand was only living as a licensee/trespasser and later sold half the property to another party (Respondent No. 2).
- Ramesh Chand countered, claiming that the property was orally transferred to him in 1973 by his father and challenged the validity of the Will and other documents.
Read also: FoodTechBiz Wins Copyright Battle, Court Orders Foodinfotech to Remove Copied Articles
The Trial Court had ruled in favor of Suresh Chand, and the Delhi High Court upheld that decision. Ramesh Chand then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined:
- Do GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, and Will confer ownership?
- Can Suresh Chand claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (part performance)?
- What are the rights of the parties, including the buyer (Respondent No. 2)?
1. GPA & Agreement to Sell Not Ownership Proof
The Court clarified that:
“A General Power of Attorney or an Agreement to Sell does not transfer ownership. Only a registered sale deed can transfer title in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.”
Thus, documents relied upon by the plaintiff did not give him ownership.
Read also: Chhattisgarh High Court Seeks Better Medical Facilities in State Hospitals
2. Will Not Properly Proved
The Will produced by Suresh Chand was found surrounded by suspicious circumstances:
- Kundan Lal had four children, but the Will allegedly left everything to one son without explanation.
- Mandatory legal requirements under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Evidence Act, 1872 (such as attesting witness testimony) were not fulfilled.
The Court held:
“Mere registration of a Will does not make it valid. Suspicious circumstances must be removed before a Will can be accepted.”
3. Section 53A (Part Performance) Not Applicable
Since the plaintiff was not in possession of the property at the time of filing the suit, he could not claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Read also: Rajasthan High Court Cancels SI Recruitment 2021 Over Paper Leak Scam
4. Succession Rights Apply
The Court ruled that after Kundan Lal’s death, all his Class-I legal heirs (children) had equal rights to the property.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court and Trial Court rulings, and dismissed Suresh Chand’s suit.
It also protected the rights of Respondent No. 2 (purchaser of 50% share from Ramesh Chand) to the extent of Ramesh Chand’s lawful share.
The Court concluded:
“Ownership of immovable property can only be transferred through a registered sale deed. GPA, Agreement to Sell, or Will alone cannot create valid title.”
Case: Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs. vs. Suresh Chand & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1059
Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025
