Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain

Supreme Court of India · 1 November 2023 · 2 judges · 2023 INSC 1016

No title to immovable property passes under an unregistered agreement to sell or general power of attorney, so a suit for possession and mesne profits founded on such documents is not maintainable.

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant, who was admittedly in possession, for possession and mesne profits. He relied on a power of attorney, an agreement to sell, an affidavit and a will executed in his favour by the owner, the appellant's brother. The appellant claimed ownership through an oral gift (Hiba) from his brother and argued that the documents were inadmissible and unenforceable. The Trial Court decreed possession and mesne profits. The Delhi High Court rejected the Hiba claim and, while agreeing in principle that the suit could not rest on unregistered documents, upheld the decree on the ground that the respondent sued as attorney of the owner, who did not object. The respondent argued that registration of such transfers was prohibited in the area and that Suraj Lamps operated only prospectively.

Questions before the Court

Whether a suit for possession and mesne profits can be maintained on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell, general power of attorney, affidavit and will.
Whether Suraj Lamps & Industries v. State of Haryana applies only prospectively, so as to save title claimed under such documents executed before it.

What the Court held

No right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. A document requiring compulsory registration that is not registered confers no right, much less a right enforceable in court.
Even a registered agreement to sell and power of attorney would not give title; at best, a registered agreement to sell supports a claim for specific performance.
An embargo on registration in an area does not override the statute so as to let unregistered documents confer title. Suraj Lamps was not merely prospective, as the requirement flows from the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act.
The plaint was not framed as a suit by the respondent as attorney of the true owner, so the High Court's reasoning could not be accepted. The appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed.

Why it matters

The order restates that title to immovable property cannot pass under unregistered agreements to sell or general powers of attorney, and that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document, relying on Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It also holds that Suraj Lamps only approves the statutory position and cannot be avoided by treating it as prospective.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that 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.”

Vikram Nath, J.Page 8 of the judgment

“The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-registration emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two enactments.”

Vikram Nath, J.Page 10 of the judgment

“The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property.”

Vikram Nath, J.Page 9 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Explains Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2011)“The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two enactments.” (page 10)

Case and bench

Parties: Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain
Case: Civil Appeal No. 1598 of 2023
Decided: 1 November 2023
Bench: Vikram Nath, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Opinions: Unanimous. Order of the Court delivered by Vikram Nath, J.