SHAKEEL AHMED versus SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 01-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 590 : 2023 INSC 1016
590
CASE DETAILS
SHAKEEL AHMED
v.
SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN
(Civil Appeal No.1598 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 01, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court whether justifi ed in affi  rming 
the judgment of the Trial Court whereby it decreed the suit for possession 
and mesne profi ts fi led by the respondent with respect to the property in 
question on the basis of unregistered documents namely a Power of Attorney, 
an agreement to sell, an affi  davit and a will.
Deeds and Documents– Unregistered documents – Title with 
respect to immovable properties, if could be transferred on the basis 
of unregistered documents:
Held: No title could be transferred with respect to immovable 
properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis 
of an unregistered General Power of Attorney – The Registration Act, 1908 
clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration 
under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable 
right to approach a Court of Law on its basis – Even if the Agreement 
to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be 
said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in 
question – No right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred 
without a registered document – The judgment of this Court in the case 
of Suraj Lamps & Industries case lays down the same proposition – The 
embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory 
provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents w.r.t 
immovable property – Argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that 
the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries would be prospective is also 
591
misplaced – The requirement of compulsory registration and eff ect on non-
registration emanates from the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property 
Act – Ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries only approves the provisions in 
the two enactments – Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the same 
view – Respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and 
mesne profi ts against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the 
property in question whether as an owner or a licensee – Impugned judgment 
set aside, suit dismissed – Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17, 49 – Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882 – s.54.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr 183 
(2011) DLT 1 (SC); Ameer Minhaj Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and 
Others (2018) 7 SCC 639 : [2018] 5 SCR 173; Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi 
Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022; M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited 
Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2022 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1598 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2018 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No.191 of 2013.
Appearances:
Anant Vijay Palli, Nikhil Palli, Nishant Kumar, Deepak Goel, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Chandra Shekhar, Prashant Shekhar, Yogesh Pachauri, Sanjay Kumar 
Tyagi, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 
23.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.191 of 2013 
between Shakeel Ahmed and Syed Akhlaq Hussain, whereby the appeal 
SHAKEEL AHMED v. SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing 
the suit for possession and mesne profi ts has been affi  rmed.
2. The appellant is defendant in the suit for possession and mesne 
profi ts instituted by the respondent with respect to the property in question. 
The suit was fi led on the basis of a Power of Attorney, an agreement to 
sell, an affi  davit and a will executed in favour of the respondent. The 
appellant, admittedly, was in possession of the property in question. The 
suit was contested on several grounds that the appellant was the owner of 
the property having received the same on the basis of a Hiba (oral gift) 
from its owner Laiq Ahmed his own brother. Secondly, that the suit was 
not maintainable as none of the documents on the basis of which the suit 
was fi led were neither admissible nor enforceable under law. Both parties 
led evidence - oral and docum

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