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

‘Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand And Anr. 2025 INSC 1059, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, decided on 1^st September, 2025, the bench composed of Aravind Kumar J. and Sandeep Mehta J’.

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that documents such as a General Power of Attorney (GPA), registered Will, Agreement-to-Sell, Consideration Receipt, do not determine ownership title over the suit property, especially since there was no possession of the said property by respondent no.1 (Suresh Chand).[1] Even where a GPA consists of clauses stating it as irrevocable, it ‘does not ipso facto constitute an instrument of transfer of an immovable property’ (para 18).[2] The case involved a dispute regarding the title over an immovable property between two brothers, whose father originally owned the said property before his death in 1997.[3] This recent and landmark case of ‘Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand’ is a significant decision in Transfer of Property law that iterates the importance of relevant documents in deciding the title over a particular immovable property.

Relevant Facts

The immovable property which is the subject-matter of the dispute was owned by Kundan Lal, the late father of the appellant and the respondent no.1.[4] The respondent no. 1, Suresh Chand, claimed to have acquired the ownership title over the property through a GPA, registered Will, Agreement-to-Sell, Affidavit, and Consideration Receipt, in 1996.[5] He also claimed that upon purchase of the said property, the appellant resided in the said property as a ‘mere trespasser’ (para 4) and sold half of it to respondent no.2 for wrongful gain.[6] This led Suresh Chand to file a suit against both the appellant (Ramesh Chand) and respondent no.2 for gaining possession, title, and the original documents of the property which were with Ramesh Chand.[7] As a counter claim, Ramesh Chand had contended that his father had orally transferred the said property to him in 1997 and he resided there since.[8] Further, in a suit withdrawn by Suresh Chand in 1997, he had agreed that his father was the owner over the said property.[9] Ramesh Chand also sought to declare the property related documents such as the GPA, to be null, void and non-binding.[10] The Learned Additional District Judge ruled in favour of Suresh Chand by setting aside Ramesh Chand’s challenge over the said documents.[11]

Although, Ramesh Chand had appealed to the Delhi High Court (HC), the court dismissed it and confirmed the decision of the lower court that the documents conferred title to Suresh Chand.[12] Again, Ramesh Chand proceeded to the Supreme Court (SC) who remanded the matter to the HC for fresh consideration.[13] This was done due to the SC’s ruling in the Suraj Lamp case[14] (2012), wherein it was observed that documents such as the GPA, Will, Agreement-to-Sell are not conveyances as per the Transfer of Property Act 1882 (TP Act). Yet again, the HC ruled in the favour of Suresh Chand, which led the case to be brought and decided by the SC.[15]

Issues for Consideration

Issue 1: Whether the documents such as the Agreement-to-Sell, GPA, Receipt, and registered Will (‘mentioned documents’) entered in favour of respondent no.1 confer valid title over the said property in dispute?[16]

Issue 2: Whether respondent no.1 can take the benefit of section 53A (‘Part Performance’) of the TP Act without having possession of the said property?[17]

Issue 3: What are the reliefs and rights that the parties would be entitled to?[18]

Arguments Presented

1. Appellant’s Arguments

• • No ownership title can be given on the basis of the agreement to sell, GPA and other mentioned documents without any possession of the said property.[19] Further, section 53A of the TP Act also cannot be attracted where possession over the said property is not given.[20]
  • The Will was not proved as per law and it is not an instrument purposing sale as per TP Act, which requires a registered instrument for sale.[21]
  • The original title documents of the immovable property were possessed by the appellant.[22] Also, the appellant had been residing and possessing the said property since 1973 and, during 1973-1997, till death, his father showed no objection to it through ejectment proceedings or notice.[23]
  • The attesting witnesses could not prove the execution of the mentioned documents as per section 3 of TP Act, section 68 of the ‘Indian Evidence Act 1872’ (IEA) and section 63 of the ‘Indian Succession Act 1925’.[24]
  • The lower courts failed to appreciate that respondent no.1 had previously admitted in a replication filed in October 1996 that his father was the owner of the said property.[25] He further filed a suit by claiming that he had purchased the said property from his father in May 1996, which is way before the replication was filed.[26]

2. Respondent no.1’s Arguments – the proceedings were carried on ex-parte due to non-appearance.[27]

3. Respondent no.2’s Arguments

• Respondent no.2 is a bonafide purchaser and is possessing the part of said property.[28]
• The rights of Respondent no.2 must be protected.[29]

Court Reasoning and Analysis

Issue 1: Other than the mentioned documents, there was no registered sale deed in favour of Suresh Chand with respect to the said property.[30] Therefore, the SC relied on the mentioned documents to determine if they would confer a valid title on respondent no.1.[31]

The SC looked into ‘sale’ and ‘contract for sale’ in section 54 of the TP Act and observed that a ‘sale’ could only be made upon a valid and executed sale deed, necessitating it to ‘be in writing, attested and registered’ (para 14).[32] Further, an ‘agreement for sale’ or a ‘contract for sale’ only creates a right to obtain a ‘registered sale deed’ to complete a sale transaction.[33] If the seller unreasonably avoids carrying out a sale deed, the buyer can file a suit for specific performance.[34] The SC relied on the Suraj Lamp case[35] to confirm that the obligation under a ‘contract of sale’ is ‘annexed to the ownership of property’ (para 16) and does not create any interest or easement.[36] Further, the protection in section 53A of TP Act can only safeguard the transferee in possession from the transferor,[37] and any ‘agreement to sell’ that is not a sale deed cannot be used to confer title over an immovable property.[38]

A GPA only authorises the grantee for acts as the grantor permits regarding a property, including its sale, however, the document does not act as a sale instrument.[39] It is not a document for the grantee’s benefit, but is a ‘document of convenience’ (para 20).[40] Even a GPA that is ‘irrevocable’ cannot transfer title over a property.[41] Further, the SC observed that the GPA only authorised Suresh Chand to act on transactions regarding the said property and did not convey title in any manner.[42]

The SC relied upon certain cases[43] to understand that a reliable Will has to be proven as per law. It needs two attesting witness who, were in this case not examined as per section 68 of the IEA.[44] The lower courts have failed to look into the validity of the Will and since the Will was found to leave out three other children of Kundan Lal without reasons, the Will cannot confer title to Suresh Chand.[45]

The SC also considered the Consideration Receipt and Affidavit and observed that, since a sale could only be done through a sale or conveyance deed as per section 54 of TP Act, these documents do not convey title over the property.[46]

Issue 2: As per section 53A of the TP Act and essential conditions for part-performance given in Nathulal v. Phoolchand,[47] the SC observed that a prime requirement is possession of property.[48] However, the respondent no.1 did not possess the said property when this suit was filed and hence, cannot claim the benefit of part-performance.[49]

Issue 3: since the said property was owned by Kundan Lal till his demise, the sharing of the property shall be done as per class-1 heirs of the deceased.[50] Further, the rights of the respondent no.2 also stand protected to the extent of his possession.[51]

Judgement and Ratio Decidendi

The SC allowed the appeal.[52] It held that the GPA, agreement-to-sell, receipt, registered Will, do not qualify as title transfer documents since section 54 of the TP Act requires a sale or ownership transfer to be done only upon a valid registered sale deed.[53] Further, the immovable property under dispute was shared to all legal heirs of Kundan Lal till class-1 and the rights of respondent no.2 who purchased part of the said property also stood protected.[54]

The case reiterated the legal principle that the valid transfer or sale of an immovable property can be done only upon the basis of a registered sale deed, and other related documents such as agreement to sell, GPA, and so on, do not act as conveyance deeds and hence, do not confer such ownership title over a property. Further, the case also emphasized on proper evaluation to ensure Will validity.

Critical Analysis

The case of ‘Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand’ is another landmark case followed by the Suraj Lamps case[55], where the emphasis on the need for a ‘registered sale deed’ to affect a proper sale or transfer of immovable property was made in both cases. The judgement simply re-establishes the law regarding transfer of property, specifically, section 54 of the TP Act that requires a registered sale deed for a Sale to be made. The mere existence of an agreement to sell does not create any interest or charge over the property but gives one the right to obtain a second document, namely a registered sale deed.[56] The case also observed that though a GPA may authorise a grantee to sell the grantor’s property, it still does not qualify as a deed of conveyance. This is because the original intention of a GPA is to authorise one to act or work on behalf of another.[57] Purchasers, estate-agents and such, usually rely on documents such as an agreement to sell or GPA to initiate property transfer, mainly due to the procedural difficulties, including stamp-duty concerns.[58] However, these documents do not act as a deed of conveyance.

Despite the emphasis for a registered sale deed made in the Suraj Lamps case in 2012, purchasers and agents still rely on these documents for immovable property transfers.[59] Further, a registered Will must also fulfil the evaluations as per the ‘Indian Succession Act 1925’ and the ‘Indian Evidence Act 1872’ to assure its validity.[60] A Will must also be free from doubt or suspicion and proved bonafide as well.[61]

The SC judgement in the instant case as well as the 2012 Suraj Lamps case[62] strengthens the requirement of property law for a registered sale deed in a valid sale. The current judgement reaffirms the SC decisions in its previous cases. This case requires the attention of all property purchasers, agents and those involved in immovable property transfers to prevent them from facing loss in case of property related disputes.

Conclusion

The instant case involved a dispute between two brothers over the suit property which was owned by their father till his demise. Although one of the brothers, Suresh Chand, presented the Courts with documents related to the property claiming that the property belonged to him, the SC noted the flawed decisions of the lower courts and looked into the documents presented by Suresh Chand, along with the law and previous judgements, and finally observed that the documents such as an agreement to sell, GPA, Receipt, or even a registered Will cannot act as a deed of conveyance of title over the suit property. The only document that proves title transfer over an immovable property is a registered sale deed as per section 54 of the TP Act 1882.

This 2025 judgement not only strengthens the law, but also strengthens precedents that emphasize the importance of the right documentation in property transfer issues.

Reference(S):

[1] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [7].

[2] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059.

[3] Ibid [4].

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid [11].

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [4].

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid [5].

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid [6].

[14] Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited through Director v State of Haryana and Another (2012) 1 SCC 656.

[15] Supra (n 13).

[16] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [10].

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Supra (n 13).

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid [8].

[28] Ibid [9].

[29] Ibid.

[30] Supra (n 5).

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [13,14].

[33] Ibid [15].

[34] Ibid.

[35] Supra (n 14).

[36] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [16].

[37] Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v Narayan Bapuji Dhotra [(2004) 8 SCC 614].

[38] Supra (n 14) at [19].

[39] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [19].

[40] State of Rajasthan and Others v Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77 [13].

[41] Supra (n 2).

[42] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [22].

[43] Mathai Samuel and Others v Eapen Eapen (Dead) by Lrs And Others (2012) 13 SCC 80; Supra (n 14); H

Venkatachala Iyengar v B N Thimmajamma and Others AIR 1959 SC 443; Meena Pradhan and Others v Kamla

Pradhan and Another (2023) 9 SCC 734.

[44] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [27].

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid [28].

[47] (1969) 3 SCC 120.

[48] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [31].

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid [32].

[51] Ibid [33].

[52] Ibid [35].

[53] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059.

[54] Ibid [32,33].

[55] Supra (n 14).

[56] Supra (n 33).

[57] Ramesh Chand (D) Thr Lrs v Suresh Chand And Anr 2025 INSC 1059 [18].

[58] PropNewz, ‘Why a GPA Sale Does Not Convey Title (Bengaluru 2026)’ (PropNewz, 2026) https://www.propnewz.com/blog/gpa-property-sale-title-bengaluru-buyers-2026-07-26 accessed 12 August 2026.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Supra (n 45).

[61] Ibid.

[62] Supra (n 14).