Ghanshyam vs. Yogendra Rathi
Background
Yogendra Rathi sued Ghanshyam for eviction from a property in Shakarpur, Delhi, claiming ownership through an unregistered agreement to sell, a power of attorney, a possession memo, a payment receipt, and a "will" executed by Ghanshyam in his favour. Rathi said he had taken possession under the agreement but then let Ghanshyam occupy part of the premises as a licensee for three months, and that Ghanshyam refused to vacate even after the licence was terminated. All three courts below (trial court, first appellate court, and the High Court in second appeal) ruled in Rathi's favour, and Ghanshyam appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that an agreement to sell is not a title document and, by itself under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, does not transfer ownership: a practice of treating sale agreements, powers of attorney and wills as substitutes for a registered sale deed has no legal basis (reaffirming Suraj Lamp & Industries vs. State of Haryana). However, since Rathi had paid full consideration, taken possession, and the documents were found genuine (not fraudulent), he had acquired a protected "possessory title" under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which cannot be disturbed by the transferor. The power of attorney was held meaningless since no sale deed was ever executed under it, and the "will" was irrelevant since a will only takes effect on the death of its maker, which had not occurred. Since Ghanshyam had since occupied only as a licensee whose licence was validly terminated, he had no continuing right to remain, and the appeal was dismissed with the eviction decree upheld.
Lesson Learnt
An agreement to sell, general power of attorney, or will does not by itself transfer ownership of immovable property under Indian law, only a registered sale deed does, but a buyer who has paid the full price and taken possession under such an agreement still gets a protected possessory right that the seller cannot later disturb.