Supreme Court Clarifies: A Will Cannot Be Proved Without Attesting Witness – Strengthening Legal Certainty in Property Transfers

Posted On - 24 October, 2025 • By - Nivedita Bhardwaj

Introduction

In a landmark judgment that reinforces the sanctity of formal documentation in property transfers, the Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Chand (D) by LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr.[1] (2025) clarified that a will cannot be proved without the testimony of an attesting witness, and ownership of immovable property cannot pass through unregistered instruments such as agreements to sell, general power of attorney (GPA), affidavits, or receipts.

This ruling reiterates core principles of property law, testamentary succession, and evidentiary compliance, areas that continue to be contentious in India’s property market, where informal documentation remains common. The decision also aligns with the Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence from Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012), which prohibited the so-called “GPA sales” prevalent in Delhi and NCR real estate.

Case Background

The dispute centered around a residential property in Ambedkar Basti, Delhi, originally owned by Shri Kundan Lal. Following his death, his sons Suresh Chand (plaintiff) and Ramesh Chand (defendant) became embroiled in a bitter property battle.

Suresh Chand claimed ownership based on a bundle of documents executed in May 1996, including an agreement to sell, GPA, affidavit, receipt, and a registered will, asserting that his father had transferred the property exclusively to him. Ramesh Chand countered, alleging oral transfer and continuous possession since 1973, and challenged the authenticity of the documents, particularly the will.

While both the trial court and the Delhi High Court had ruled in favor of Suresh Chand, the Supreme Court ultimately overturned these decisions, dismissing the suit and reaffirming the necessity of registered conveyance and valid attestation for wills.

  1. Whether ownership of immovable property can be claimed based on unregistered documents such as an agreement to sell or GPA.
  2. Whether the will executed by the deceased was proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  3. Whether the plaintiff could seek protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (doctrine of part performance).
  4. The extent of rights of the bona fide purchaser (defendant no. 2) who bought part of the disputed property.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Findings

1. No Title Without a Registered Sale Deed

The Court held unequivocally that title to immovable property can only pass through a registered deed of conveyance as required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Documents such as agreement to sell, GPA, affidavits, and receipts merely create contractual rights but do not transfer ownership. This continues the precedent laid down in Suraj Lamp (2012), where the Supreme Court had declared “GPA sales” legally invalid for conveyance of property.

“An agreement to sell, even coupled with a GPA or affidavit, does not convey title nor create any interest in the property,” the Bench reiterated.

2. Will Not Proved Without Attesting Witness

The Court found that the will relied upon by the plaintiff had not been proved in compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, which require that at least one attesting witness be examined to validate execution.

The Court noted suspicious circumstances including exclusion of three out of four legal heirs without explanation and held that registration of a will does not automatically make it genuine unless the attestation and witness requirements are satisfied.

“Suspicious circumstances must be dispelled by the propounder of the will,” the Court held, emphasizing the evidentiary burden in testamentary disputes.

3. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act Inapplicable

The plaintiff’s claim of part performance under Section 53A failed because he was not in possession of the property, a precondition to invoke this equitable protection. The doctrine, the Court clarified, acts only as a shield for a transferee in possession, not as a sword to acquire ownership.

4. Devolution Under Hindu Succession Act

Since no valid transfer had occurred, the property devolved equally upon all Class I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court, however, protected the rights of the bona fide purchaser (defendant no. 2) to the extent of the share he had lawfully acquired.

This decision reinforces three key legal takeaways:

1. Curtailing Informal Property Transfers

A 2023 NITI Aayog report noted that nearly 40% of property transactions in urban India still rely on informal instruments like GPA or unregistered sale agreements creating massive legal uncertainty. This judgment strengthens the government’s ongoing efforts to formalize property ownership and curb benami transactions.

2. Strengthening Evidentiary Standards in Testamentary Disputes

India witnesses over 20,000 will-related disputes annually, according to data from the Ministry of Law and Justice. By mandating strict compliance with witness attestation, the Court aims to reduce fraudulent wills and promote transparency in inheritance claims.

3. Reaffirming Judicial Consistency

The ruling aligns with earlier precedents including:

  • Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656
  • Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh (2009) 4 SCC 780
  • K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini (2009) 1 SCC 354

Together, these cases reinforce the judicial principle that property rights flow only from formal registration and valid proof of execution, ensuring legal certainty and protecting bona fide purchasers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand serves as a strong reminder that ownership of immovable property in India cannot be established through unregistered or informal documents.

A registered conveyance deed remains the only valid mode of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and a will must be proved through attesting witnesses as per the Succession Act and Evidence Act.

This judgment not only settles a family dispute but also sends a clear message to the real estate sector: legal compliance is non-negotiable in property transfers.

[1] Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012