Court emphasizes the necessity of registered sale deeds for valid property ownership, dismissing claims based on agreements to sell and general power of attorney.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a civil suit filed by Neelam Bhatia and others against Ritu Bhatia and others, emphasizing the legal necessity for registered conveyance deeds in property transactions. The plaintiffs had claimed ownership of a piece of land in Karawal Nagar, Delhi, based on an unregistered Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA), and Receipt dated 1981. The court, presided over by Mr. Amit Bansal, J., unequivocally rejected these claims, underscoring that such documents do not confer any legal title or interest in immovable property.
The plaintiffs, legal heirs of the late Dinesh Kumar Bhatia, sought partition of the property and a declaration of joint ownership, arguing that the property was purchased jointly by their predecessor and the predecessor of the defendants. However, the court noted that only a registered sale deed can validly transfer property rights, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which establishes that unregistered agreements to sell and GPAs cannot substitute for a sale deed.
The judgment also highlighted that the plaintiffs had failed to seek specific performance of the agreement or involve the original seller in their suit, further weakening their position. Moreover, the court pointed out that the registered sale deed in favor of the defendants' predecessor from 1982 was not contested by the plaintiffs' predecessor during his lifetime, nor was it challenged by the plaintiffs during the lifetime of the defendants' predecessor.
In delivering the judgment, the court exercised its powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which allows for the rejection of plaints that do not disclose a cause of action or are barred by law. The court concluded that the suit was vexatious and lacked merit, thereby conserving judicial resources and protecting the defendants from unwarranted litigation.
This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for property transactions and serves as a reminder of the limitations of unregistered documents in claiming property rights.
Bottom Line:
Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, and Receipt do not confer valid title or interest in immovable property unless accompanied by a registered Sale Deed.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VII Rule 11, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 54, Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 Sections 1-A and 2
Neelam Bhatia v. Ritu Bhatia, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845184
