Clear Title Deeds: A Prerequisite For Property Ownership

In a significant ruling dated September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012 (Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand & Anr.) clarified that ownership of immovable property cannot be claimed through informal or incomplete documents unless statutory provisions are fully complied with. The above case is involved with a dispute between two brothers over ancestral property located at No. 563, Ambedkar Basti, near Balmiki Gate, Delhi, originally owned by their father, Shri Kundan Lal.

The plaintiff, Mr. Suresh Chand, claimed that he had acquired ownership through an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit & Receipt acknowledging payment of ₹1,40,000 and a Registered Will, (all dated 16.05.1996). He alleged that his father had bequeathed the property entirely to him and accused his brother, Mr. Ramesh Chand was living in the property as a trespasser. The plaintiff also claimed that his brother wrongfully sold half the property to a third party, defendant no. 2 and filed a suit seeking possession, mesne profits, title declaration and an injunction to hand over original documents.

The defendant contended that the property had been orally transferred by their father in 1973 and that he had been in continuous possession until the father’s death in 1997. He further alleged that the plaintiff’s claims were fraudulent and unsupported by a registered sale deed and raised doubts about the will, stating suspicious circumstances such as of other heirs have been excluded and lack of attesting witnesses. The matter had earlier been subject to OS No. 294/1996, where ownership of father was admitted by the plaintiff.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, a decision later upheld by the High Court of Delhi in RFA 358/2000, which dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which observed that documents such as agreements to sell, powers of attorney and wills do not amount to transfers of property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. After reconsideration, the case was again dismissed. Aggrieved by the order the defendant filed the present appeal.

The Supreme Court held that, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, ownership of property can only be transferred through a registered sale deed. Agreements or powers of attorney create contractual obligations but do not confer title. The Court further explained that a General Power of Attorney merely authorizes management, not ownership, while a will is a testamentary document that takes effect only after the testator’s death and must meet statutory proof requirements under Sections 63 of the Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act. The Court also pointed out that possession is essential for claiming protection under Section 53A, which the plaintiff failed to prove. Moreover, the will which was put forth by the plaintiff raised suspicion because it excluded other legal heirs without any justification.

After taking the above clarifications into consideration, the Court set aside the lower courts’ judgments, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and upheld that inheritance laws govern property rights in the absence of a valid will. At the same time, it protected the rights of bona fide purchasers to the extent of their lawful share.

Conclusion:

This landmark judgment reinforces that property ownership must be supported by proper deeds and compliance with statutory requirements. Property purchasers must ensure thorough verification of title, possession and testamentary documents before proceeding with property transactions.