Summary and Analysis of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr LRS vs Suresh Chand & Anr 2025 INSC 1059

1. Heading of the Judgment

Supreme Court of India – Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012
Appellant: Ramesh Chand (Deceased) through Legal Representatives
Respondents: Suresh Chand and Another
Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

Citation: Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. LRS. v. Suresh Chand & Anr., 2025 INSC 1059 (Supreme Court of India, September 1, 2025).

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act):
  Section 5: Definition of "Transfer of Property"
  Section 54: Definition of "Sale" and requirement of registered instrument
  Section 53A: Doctrine of Part Performance

• Indian Succession Act, 1925:
  Section 63: Execution of unprivileged Wills

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  Section 68: Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
  Provisions related to suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits

3. Basic Judgment Details

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the legal heirs of Ramesh Chand (defendant no. 1) and set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court of Delhi. The Court held that the plaintiff, Suresh Chand, did not acquire valid title over the suit property through the documents relied upon (GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc.). The suit for possession and declaration was dismissed, and the rights of the parties were clarified regarding the ancestral property.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background

The suit property was originally owned by Kundan Lal, father of the plaintiff (Suresh Chand) and defendant no. 1 (Ramesh Chand). After Kundan Lal’s death in 1997, Suresh Chand claimed ownership based on the following documents executed by his father on May 16, 1996:

• General Power of Attorney (GPA)

• Agreement to Sell

• Affidavit

• Receipt of Consideration

• Registered Will

Suresh Chand filed a suit for possession, declaration, and mesne profits against Ramesh Chand, who was in possession of the property. Ramesh Chand contended that the property was orally transferred to him in 1973 and that the documents relied upon by Suresh Chand were invalid.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the documents (GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc.) conferred valid title on Suresh Chand?

2. Whether Suresh Chand could claim benefit under Section 53A of the TP Act (Part Performance)?

3. What relief were the parties entitled to?

Supreme Court’s Analysis & Directions

A. Validity of Documents Relied Upon by Plaintiff

Agreement to Sell

• The Court reiterated that an agreement to sell does not transfer title. It only creates a right to seek specific performance.

• As per Section 54 of the TP Act, sale of immovable property valued at ₹100 or more must be through a registered sale deed.

• Since no sale deed was executed, Suresh Chand did not acquire ownership.

General Power of Attorney (GPA)

• A GPA is not an instrument of transfer. It only creates an agency relationship.

• It does not confer any title or interest in the property on the grantee.

• The GPA in question only authorized Suresh Chand to manage the property, not to own it.

Will

• A Will is ambulatory and revocable during the testator’s lifetime. It takes effect only after death.

• The Will was not proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

• Attesting witnesses were not examined to prove due execution.

• The Will was suspicious as it excluded three other children without explanation.

• Hence, the Will was invalid and did not confer title.

Affidavit and Receipt

• These documents merely acknowledged receipt of consideration but did not transfer title.

• Without a registered sale deed, they had no legal effect.

B. Claim Under Section 53A TP Act (Part Performance)

• Section 53A requires that the transferee must be in possession of the property in part performance of the contract.

• Since Suresh Chand was not in possession (as he filed a suit for possession), he could not invoke Section 53A.

C. Rights of the Parties

• The suit property belonged to Kundan Lal. Since the Will was invalid, the property devolved upon his Class-I legal heirs (his children) by succession.

• Ramesh Chand had sold 50% of the property to respondent no. 2. The Supreme Court protected the rights of respondent no. 2 to the extent of Ramesh Chand’s share.

• The parties were left to pursue their rights in accordance with the law of succession.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that Suresh Chand did not acquire any title through the documents executed by Kundan Lal. The judgments of the Trial Court and High Court were set aside. The suit filed by Suresh Chand was dismissed. The property was to be treated as ancestral property devolving upon all legal heirs of Kundan Lal.