RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS. versus SURESH CHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 01-09-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 339 : 2025 INSC 1059
Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. 
v. 
Suresh Chand and Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012)
01 September 2025
[Aravind Kumar* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
I) Whether the impugned documents, i.e., Agreement to Sell, 
General Power of Attorney, Receipt of Consideration and the 
registered Will, allegedly entered into by K, father of the appellant/
defendant no.1 and respondent no.1/plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff 
would confer a valid title over the suit property; II) Whether the 
plaintiff can claim any benefit u/s.53A of TP Act, which deals with 
Part Performance.
Headnotes†
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.54 – Succession Act, 1925 – 
s.63 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.68 – Respondent no.1/plaintiff 
filed suit no. 613/1997 for possession, mesne profit, declaration, 
mandatory injunction against the appellant/defendant no. 1 and 
respondent no.2/defendant no.2 – The plaintiff claims that he 
had acquired title to the suit property from his father by virtue 
of a Agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, Registered 
Will and Receipt of Consideration – It was further claimed 
that in order to gain wrongfully, the defendant no.1 sold half 
the portion of the suit property to the defendant no.2 – The 
Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent no.1/
plaintiff – In an appeal, the High Court upheld the decision 
of the Trial Court and dismissed the appellant’s appeal – 
Thereafter, the Civil Appeal No. 9012/2011 came to be filed 
before this Court assailing the said dismissal by the High 
Court – Vide order dated 31.10.2011 this court remanded the 
matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration – Matter 
was restored in the High Court – However, the High Court by 
the impugned order dismissed it – Correctness:
Held: In the instant matter, undisputedly plaintiff claims that there 
is only an Agreement to sell, and there is no sale deed executed 
* Author
340
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in his favour by the father – As per the settled position of law, this 
document does not confer a valid title on the plaintiff as it is not a 
deed of conveyance as per s.54 of the TP Act – As regards General 
Power of Attorney, the said GPA merely authorises the grantee to 
manage the affairs of the suit property, which includes the power 
to let out the property on rent, and create a mortgage of the same, 
etc. – However, it is silent on the aspect of conveyance – It does 
not confer a valid title on him with respect to the suit property – The 
third document relied upon by the plaintiff is registered Will, the 
same has to be proved in accordance with law – In the trial Court 
judgment, there is not an iota of discussion about the validity of 
the Will as contemplated u/s.63 of the Succession Act, 1925 and 
s.68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and yet, the validity of the Will has 
been upheld – Even the High Court, while evaluating the validity of 
the Will, has gone on a different tangent and has erroneously held 
that the requirement of examining the attesting witnesses springs 
into action only in cases of disputes between legal heirs – Such an 
observation is quite contrary to law – Besides that, there are certain 
suspicious circumstance surrounding the will, in as much as the 
alleged propounder of the Will, K had four children and he granted 
the entire property to one of his children without any reasoning 
as to why other three children were excluded – Apart from from 
the aforementioned documents, there is also an affidavit dated 
16.05.1996 wherein K is said to have acknowledged receipt of full 
consideration for the sale of suit property – The said instruments 
do not confer a valid title upon the plaintiff because as per s.54 
of TP Act, only through a deed of conveyance can a title can be 
transferred and none of the other documents and recitals in the 
said affidavit are not proved by examining any other independent 
witnesses – Thus, the impugned judgment is set aside and suit of 
the plaintiff stands dismissed. [Paras 17, 22, 27, 28, 35]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.53-A – Whether the Plaintiff 
can claim any benefit u/s. 53A of TP Act, which deals with 
Part Performance:
Held: According to s.53A of the TP Act, where there is a contract 
to transfer any immovable property in writing and the transferee 
has in part performance of the contract taken the possession of the 
property or part thereof, then notwithstanding that the transfer 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.