Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Decree in Property Dispute, Dismissing Appeal on Power of Attorney Sale Agreement
Court reaffirms that General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement cannot confer title in immovable property, dismisses appeal challenging decree execution.
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the appellants challenging the execution of a decree for specific performance in a property dispute case, confirming that a General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement does not confer any title or interest in immovable property. The judgment, delivered on October 8, 2025, by Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, underscores the limitations of such agreements under Indian property law.
The case involved a dispute over the execution of a decree granted in favor of Kampa Bhaskara Rao, who had obtained a decree for specific performance based on an agreement of sale dated July 1, 2006, for a property from the defendant, the judgment debtor. Despite the decree being granted ex parte and the sale deed executed by the court, the appellants resisted the delivery of possession, claiming a valid title through a General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement executed on January 17, 2007.
The appellants, led by Konkanala Suryaprakasha Rao, contended that the General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement had transferred title to them, allowing them to resist the execution of the decree. However, the court rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana, which established that such agreements do not convey title in immovable property and can only serve as agreements of sale.
The bench clarified that the sale of immovable property can only be effected through a registered sale deed, and agreements like General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale cannot be treated as completed transfers. The court further emphasized that such agreements can only be used to defend possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or to seek specific performance, but not to confer ownership.
The court also noted the timing of the agreements, with the original agreement of sale in favor of the decree holder preceding the General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement claimed by the appellants. This chronological precedence invalidated the appellants' claim to title, as the earlier agreement had already resulted in a judicially sanctioned sale deed.
Additionally, the court addressed the procedural aspect, affirming the maintainability of the appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against orders passed under Order 21 Rules 98 and 100, as such orders are treated as decrees.
In dismissing the appeal, the court reinforced the legal position that General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreements cannot be considered as instruments of transfer and do not establish ownership. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for property transfers and the limitations of non-registered agreements.
Bottom Line:
A General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale does not confer or create any right, title, or interest in immovable property under Indian law - Such transactions are merely agreements of sale and cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances.
Statutory provision(s): Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sections 53A and 54, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 21 Rule 97, Rule 101, Section 96
