CASE SUMMARY: RAMESH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS V. SURESH CHAND & ANR.

• Title: RAMESH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS V. SURESH CHAND & ANR.
• Citation:  Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, decided on September 1, 2025, reported as 2025 INSC 1059.
• Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.
• Bench: Aravind Kumar, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.
• Date of Judgment:  1 September 2025.
• Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions: 

1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Ss. 5, 53A, 54, 55)
2. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Ss. 59, 63)
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (S. 68)

Brief Facts:

The real matter of conflict in the case was a plot of land situated in Ambedkar Basti, just opposite Balmiki Gate of the busy city of Delhi. This was a plot of land belonging to one Kundan Lal, who was the father of both the parties to this case, the plaintiff Suresh Chand and the defendant Ramesh Chand.

Suresh Chand (the plaintiff) claimed ownership of the property on the basis of a series of writings supposedly signed by Kundan Lal in 1996:

1. An Agreement to Sell
2. A General Power of Attorney (GPA)
3. An Affidavit
4. A Receipt acknowledging payment of ₹1,40,000/-
5. A Registered Will in his favour,

He argued that after completing this transfer, Ramesh Chand was simply living in the property as a licensee, implying he was authorized to occupy it, and then proceeded to the status of a trespasser, a term to imply an unwarranted presence. Additionally, he asserted Ramesh committed the wrongful action of selling a percentage of the property to a third party (Defendant No. 2) without any rights to do so. 

Ramesh Chand, the defendant in this case, categorically denied the allegations levelled against him. He made an argument to the effect that his father had actually orally transferred ownership of the property to him many years earlier, namely in the year 1973. Moreover, he stated that since then, he had continuously lived on the property without any break, thus showing continuous possession of the same. Added to this was his argument that the documents on which Suresh Chand, the other party, had placed reliance, not only were void but also obtained through misrepresentation and thus had no credibility.

The trial court adjudicated the suit in favour of Suresh Chand and refused Ramesh Chand’s counterclaim. This decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court. The case was earlier referred to the Supreme Court, and it was sent back after the Suraj Lamp case decision made it clear that GPA and Agreement to Sell are not transferrable instruments. After re-hearing, the High Court once again refused Ramesh’s appeal in 2012. Therefore, the case was once again referred to the Supreme Court in this civil appeal.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether documents such as Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, Receipt, and a Will executed by Kundan Lal were sufficient to transfer ownership of the property to Suresh Chand.
2. Whether Suresh Chand could claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (the doctrine of part performance).
3. Whether Defendant No. 2, a subsequent purchaser from Ramesh Chand, had any valid rights in the property.

Arguments

(a) Appellant (Ramesh Chand / Defendant 1)

The writings on which the plaintiff relied on did not, in fact, confer any ownership rights on him. To be legally valid in a sale of an immovable property, there should be a registered sale deed as prescribed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Further, the Will filed was not proved as per legal procedure, primarily because no attesting witness was cross-examined, a provision enjoined both under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and also Section 63 of the Succession Act. It must also be narrated here that once the plaintiff had admitted that Kundan Lal was still held to be the owner, and the same stood in conflict with what he was claiming now in current date. Ramesh Chand, on the other hand, had remained in undisturbed possession of the property ever since the year 1973, a fact not challenged ever by the father in his lifetime.

(b) Respondent No. 1 (Suresh Chand / Plaintiff)

Asserted rights under the 1996 documents and registered Will., Alleged that Ramesh Chand illegally sold half of the property to a third party.

(c) Respondent No. 2 (Purchaser from Ramesh Chand)

Asserted that he was a bona fide purchaser of half the property from Ramesh Chand. Referenced prior interim orders securing his possession. Urged that his rights as a good-faith buyer should be protected.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court scrutinized every one of the documents :

Agreement to Sell: The Court clarified that an agreement to sell only confers a right to pursue a future sale deed. It does not itself form ownership or pass rights in property. Therefore, Suresh Chand’s reliance upon it was incorrect.

GPA: A power of attorney merely empowers an agent to act on behalf of the principal. It itself does not transfer property. Notwithstanding its irrevocable nature, it cannot be a deed of conveyance.

Affidavit and Receipt: These could not be considered as transfer instruments. Only a sale deed that is registered can transfer ownership of immovable property of value in excess of ₹100.

Will: Although a Will can work to pass on property at death, it has to be proven by checking at least one witness. Here, there was no such evidence given. Moreover, the Will was under suspicious circumstances – it only benefited one son, excluding other children, without any reason. Therefore, the Will was declared invalid.

Section 53A (Part Performance): The Court decided that this protection only arises when the transferee has taken possession under the contract. As Suresh Chand was not in possession (actually, he sued for possession), he could not invoke the benefit of this section.

The Court held that on the death of Kundan Lal in 1997, succession became open to all his Class I heirs. As exclusive ownership of the plaintiff was not proved, he could not inherit.

On the rights of Defendant No. 2, the Court reiterated the earlier interim protection – his interest would be protected up to the extent of share rightfully due to Ramesh Chand.

Thus, the appeal was granted, the trial court’s judgments and High Court were reversed, and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi:

Transfer of immovable property can only be done through a stamped and registered sale deed. Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, or receipts cannot be used in place of a Sale Deed.

A Will has to be established in strict adherence to the provisions of law. It is not made valid by mere registration.

Part performance doctrine (Section 53A TPA) is only for transferees in possession under contract. Without possession, the advantage cannot be taken.

Obiter Dicta:

The Court emphasized that “shortcuts” in property transfers, for example the use of GPA/Agreement to Sell, create legal uncertainty and should be discouraged. These acts undermine the certainty of property transactions and burden courts with disputes.

Final Decision:

The Supreme Court, on a thorough and meticulous review of the documents, pleadings, and provisions of law, granted the civil appeal opted for by Ramesh Chand. The Court categorically held that plaintiff Suresh Chand had not proved exclusive ownership of the suit property since the chain of documents upon which he was relying- the Agreement to Sell, the General Power of Attorney, the Affidavit, the Receipt, and even the Registered Will – were not compliant with the statutory conditions for transfer of immovable property. Without a registered Sale Deed, no title, right, or interest could be held to have been transferred in his favour.

The Court went on to hold that succession to Kundan Lal’s estate opened upon his death in 1997 and, consequently, the property devolved upon all Class I heirs in equal shares. Inasmuch as Suresh Chand was not able to establish valid transfer of the property exclusively to himself, his ownership claim to the property alone failed.

With regard to Defendant No. 2, who had bought a share of the property from Ramesh Chand, the Court extended the principle of protecting a bona fide purchaser without notice on a limited basis. It explained that Defendant No. 2 was not entitled to more than Ramesh legally owned; thus, his interest would be protected only up to the part legally owned by Ramesh Chand under succession. This ensured that although his ownership would not be completely negated, it would be kept within the legal rights arising from Ramesh’s inheritance.

Finally, the Supreme Court overturned the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, rejected the suit of Suresh Chand, and restored equilibrium by protecting the limited rights of the subsequent purchaser. The Court also emphasized the general principle that short cut or informal ways of transfer of property like GPA sales or untested Wills cannot override the statutory requirement of registered conveyance deeds since the latter would introduce uncertainty and promote fraudulent transactions. Lastly, the Court did not make any order as to costs so that each party would have to pay its own cost of litigation.