Whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits has been affirmed (Para 1)
The appellant is defendant in the suit for possession and mesne profits instituted by the respondent with respect to the property in question. (Para 2)
Findings recorded by the Trial Court were that all the issues were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent except issue no.8 and decree for possession along with mesne profits was granted. (Para 3)
High Court confirmed the finding with regard to the claim of the appellant regarding Hiba in his favour and held that the appellant had failed to prove the same. With respect to the other argument regarding suit being maintained on the basis of an unregistered document, the High Court, although in principle agreed but proceeded to uphold the decree of possession on the ground that the respondent had filed the suit as an Attorney for and on behalf of its owner Laiq Ahmed and that Laiq Ahmed was not objecting to the respondent seeking possession of the suit property. On this sole ground, it confirmed the decree of possession and dismissed the appeal. (Para 4)
The Court below erred in decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits on the basis of unregistered documents namely Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Affidavit and a Will. (Para 5.1)
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. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (Para 10)
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. Once this is the settled position, the respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee. (Para 12)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 445 SC
[2023 INSC 1016]
Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain
Civil Appeal No. 1598 of 2023-Decided on 01-11-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-STPLWeb-445-SC.pdf
