In a recent legal pronouncement, the Supreme Court has emphatically affirmed that the transfer of title for immovable properties cannot occur through an Agreement to Sell or a General Power of Attorney unless duly registered.
A judicial panel, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, handed down the verdict, underlining the imperative stipulations of the Registration Act, 1908. The justices underscored that an unregistered Agreement to Sell or an unregistered General Power of Attorney fails to confer any legal right, rendering it ineligible for recourse in a court of law. Even registered documents, they noted, do not automatically grant title but may, at best, warrant a claim for specific performance under certain circumstances.
The court unequivocally rejected the contention that the 2011 judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, which barred title transfer through unregistered documents, applies solely prospectively. Stressing the pivotal role of registration in property dealings, the justices cited sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The case in question involved an appellant defending against a suit filed by the respondent, seeking possession and mesne profits based on a Power of Attorney, an Agreement to Sell, an affidavit, and a will. The appellant, in possession of the property, argued ownership through a gift from his brother, Laiq Ahmed, and challenged the admissibility and enforceability of the documents.
Despite the High Court acknowledging the argument on unregistered documents, it upheld the possession decree, citing that the respondent acted as an attorney for the owner, Laiq Ahmed, who did not contest the suit. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning, pointing to established legal precedents.
The appellant contended that the trial court erred in decreeing possession based on unregistered documents. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing that no right, title, or interest in immovable property can be conveyed without proper registration. Relying on recent judgments, the court dismissed the suit, emphasizing that the respondent should have pursued eviction through appropriate channels if the appellant were considered a licensee.
In sum, the Supreme Court, in a departure from the High Court’s stance, underscored the indispensability of registration for property transactions, ultimately allowing the appeal and quashing the suit.
Read also: “Supreme Court Affirms: Agreement To Sell Inadequate for Ownership Transfer”
