Shakeel Ahmed vs Syed Akhlaq Hussain
Background
The respondent sued the appellant for possession and mesne profits of a property, relying on a Power of Attorney, an agreement to sell, an affidavit, and a will allegedly executed in his favour. The appellant, who was in possession, claimed ownership through an oral gift (Hiba) from his brother and also argued the suit documents were unregistered and legally unenforceable. The Trial Court decreed possession in the respondent's favour, and the Delhi High Court upheld this, not by accepting the documents as conferring ownership, but by reasoning the respondent could maintain the suit as an "Attorney" acting for the true owner, his brother.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that an unregistered Agreement to Sell or unregistered General Power of Attorney cannot confer title or an enforceable right to sue for possession over immovable property, reaffirming its earlier ruling in Suraj Lamps & Industries and rejecting the argument that this rule applied only prospectively. It further found that the plaint itself showed the respondent had sued in his own individual capacity claiming ownership, not as an Attorney suing on behalf of the actual owner, so the High Court's alternate reasoning could not rescue the decree. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the original suit for possession was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Unregistered sale agreements, powers of attorney, or affidavits do not transfer ownership of immovable property in India: a genuine transfer of title requires a registered document, and buyers relying only on such informal paperwork cannot use them to claim ownership or evict a person in possession.