POSSESSORY RIGHTS AND EVICTION: UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL UNDER INDIAN LAW
Category: Property Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
FACT OF THE CASE
The case relates to a property dispute between Ghanshyam who is the appellant and Yogendra Rathi who is the respondent. Yogendra Rathi demanded ownership of a property in J.J. Colony, Shakarpur, Delhi, based on the documents such as agreement to sell, power of attorney, a possession memo, and a payment receipt. Ghanshyam, who initially possessed the property, was allowed to stay temporarily as a licensee but refused to vacate after the license period expired.
ISSUE INVOLVED
Whether the documents namely the power of attorney, the will, the agreement to sell coupled with possession
memo and the receipt of payment of sale consideration, would confer any title upon the plaintiff-respondent?
. LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908
ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff argued that he was the legal owner of the property because he has the legal documents (agreement to sell, power of attorney, etc.) and that Ghanshyam should be evicted as he overstayed beyond the license period.
ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT
The defendant contended that the documents were illegal ,fake and those documents manipulated the owner and claimed that the agreement to sell and related documents did not transfer ownership to Yogendra Rathi.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court here first of all observed that Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act (TOPA) provides that transfer of ownership of the property never happens unless document contemplated under Section 54 is executed and registered under Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908.Further, the Court observed that since no document was executed in pursuance of the power of attorney it is of no consequence. Similarly will is of no consequence as it comes into force after the death of the executant. The Court further observed that an agreement to sell indeed cannot transfer proprietary right but by virtue of Section 53A of TOPA the transferor cannot disturb the possession of the plaintiff as he has possessory rights over the property. Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction with mesne profits.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: KOUSTAV GHOSH
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
