Case: Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1059
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025
Background
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered its judgment in a long-standing property dispute between two brothers over ownership of a residential property in Delhi. The case revolved around the estate of late Shri Kundan Lal, father of both parties.
The plaintiff, Suresh Chand (Respondent No.1), had filed a suit in 1997 seeking possession, mesne profits, declaration of title, and mandatory injunction against his brother Ramesh Chand (Defendant No.1/Appellant) and a subsequent purchaser (Defendant No.2).
Suresh Chand claimed ownership on the basis of documents such as an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA), affidavit, receipt of consideration, and a registered Will executed by their father in May 1996. He alleged that Ramesh Chand had wrongfully occupied the property and even sold half of it to Defendant No.2.
Ramesh Chand, however, denied these claims, contending that the property had been orally transferred to him in 1973 and that the plaintiff’s documents were fabricated or legally invalid.
Trial Court & High Court Proceedings
- The Trial Court (2000) decreed the suit in favour of Suresh Chand, upholding the validity of the documents and dismissing Ramesh Chand’s counterclaim.
- The Delhi High Court (2012) confirmed the decree, relying on earlier precedents, including Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank.
- However, after Suraj Lamp & Industries (2012) clarified that GPA/Agreement-to-Sell transactions are not valid transfers of property under the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court in 2011 for fresh consideration. Despite this, the High Court again dismissed the appeal in 2012, prompting the present Supreme Court proceedings.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the documents (Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, Receipt, Affidavit) executed by Kundan Lal conferred valid title to Suresh Chand.
- Whether Suresh Chand could claim protection under Section 53A of the TPA (doctrine of part performance).
- What reliefs the parties were entitled to.
Supreme Court’s Findings
1. No Valid Title Through GPA/Agreement to Sell
The Court reaffirmed that:
- An Agreement to Sell does not itself transfer ownership; it merely creates a right to seek specific performance.
- A GPA is only an agency arrangement and not a conveyance of property.
- A receipt or affidavit acknowledging consideration cannot substitute for a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the TPA.
Thus, none of these documents conferred ownership rights on the plaintiff.
2. The Will Was Not Properly Proved
The Court noted that:
- The Will of 16 May 1996 was not proved in compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, which require examination of attesting witnesses.
- The suspicious exclusion of three of Kundan Lal’s four children further cast doubt on its authenticity.
- Registration alone does not validate a Will.
Therefore, the Will could not be relied upon to grant exclusive ownership to Suresh Chand.
3. Section 53A of TPA Not Applicable
The plaintiff was not in possession of the property at the time of filing the suit. Since possession is a prerequisite for claiming part-performance protection, Section 53A was held inapplicable.
4. Succession Opens to All Class-I Heirs
Since none of the plaintiff’s documents conferred valid ownership, the Court held that succession opened upon Kundan Lal’s death in 1997. All his Class-I legal heirs, including both brothers, were entitled to shares in the property.
5. Protection of Bona Fide Purchaser (Defendant No.2)
The Court clarified that the rights of Defendant No.2, who purchased 50% of the property from Ramesh Chand, would be protected only to the extent of Ramesh Chand’s share.
Final Order
- The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court.
- The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.
- Succession rights of all heirs of Kundan Lal remain intact.
- Defendant No.2’s rights are protected proportionately, limited to the share of Ramesh Chand.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling reaffirms several settled principles of property law:
- GPA/Agreement-to-Sell transactions are not transfers of ownership.
- A Will must be strictly proved in accordance with statutory requirements, and suspicious circumstances must be dispelled.
- Section 53A TPA protection requires proof of possession.
- In absence of a valid transfer, succession rights under Hindu law prevail.
By dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the Court emphasized the primacy of registered conveyance deeds and strict proof of Wills in property disputes.