In a landmark judgment delivered on September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of India revisited a long-standing controversy surrounding property transfers via General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, and Will. The case—Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr.—is not just another property dispute between siblings. It’s a judicial reckoning that reaffirms the sanctity of registered conveyance and the limitations of surrogate instruments often used to bypass formal legal channels.
This blog unpacks the ruling, its implications for property law, and why it should matter to every real estate stakeholder, investor, and legal practitioner in India.
The Case in Brief
- Parties: Two brothers disputing ownership of a property inherited from their father, Shri Kundan Lal.
- Claim: The plaintiff relied on a GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, and a Registered Will to assert ownership.
- Defense: The defendant claimed oral transfer in 1973 and continuous possession since then.
- Outcome: Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, holding that none of the documents conferred valid title.
GPA & Agreement to Sell: Not a Sale, Not a Title
The Court reaffirmed what it had previously held in Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana (2012):
“A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property.”
Key Takeaways:
- A GPA merely creates an agency relationship. It does not transfer ownership.
- An Agreement to Sell is a promise to transfer, not the transfer itself.
- Without a registered sale deed, no proprietary rights are conferred.
This is a critical reminder for buyers who rely on GPA-based transactions to avoid stamp duty or registration costs. The Court has made it abundantly clear: such shortcuts are legally untenable.
The Will: Suspicious Circumstances & Legal Standards
While the plaintiff also relied on a registered Will, the Court found it wanting on multiple fronts:
- No attesting witness was examined as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- The Will excluded three other children without explanation—raising serious doubts about its authenticity.
- Registration alone does not validate a Will.
The judgment underscores that a Will must be proved like any other document, and more so when it’s surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act: No Possession, No Protection
The plaintiff invoked the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A, claiming protection despite the absence of a registered sale deed. The Court rejected this claim, noting:
“Since there was no possession with the plaintiff, he cannot derive any benefit under the doctrine of part-possession.”
Possession is not just nine-tenths of the law—it’s the cornerstone of Section 53A. Without it, the doctrine collapses.
Legal Implications for Clients & Practitioners
This judgment is a clarion call for reform in property transactions. It sends a clear message:
- Buyers: Insist on a registered sale deed. Anything less is legally fragile.
- Sellers: Avoid informal transfers. They invite litigation and uncertainty.
- Lawyers: Advise clients against GPA-based purchases. The risks far outweigh the savings.
Disclaimer
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, this blog is intended solely for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. August Attorneys LLP does not advertise or solicit clients through this publication. For personalized legal counsel, please contact qualified professional.