Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs VS Suresh Chand
(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.34— Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.54— Title to immovable property – Claim on the basis of agreement to sell – Plaintiff and defendant were brothers, and suit property belonged to their father – Plaintiff claimed title to suit property by placing reliance upon agreement to sell – Admittedly no sale deed had been executed in favour of plaintiff – It is settled law that agreement to sell does not confer a valid title as it is not a deed of conveyance – The agreement does not create an interest or charge on property – At best, such agreement may enable plaintiff to seek specific performance – Claim of plaintiff was not sustainable
2012 AIR CC 2712 (DEL)-Reversed(Para17)
(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.34— Powers-of-Attorney Act (7 of 1882) , S.2— Title to immovable property – Claim on the basis of General Power of Attorney – Plaintiff and defendant were brothers, and suit property belonged to their father – Plaintiff claimed title to suit property by placing reliance upon power of attorney – A General Power of Attorney does not ipso facto constitute an instrument of transfer of an immovable property even if it is made irrevocable or authorises holder to effect sale of immovable property on behalf of grantor – General Power of Attorney is not a conveyance deed – In facts of case also, recitals in power of attorney indicated that intent of grantor was to limit powers of grantee to manage suit property, and not to create any interest in his favour – Even if Power of Attorney was validly executed in favour of plaintiff, still it would not confer a valid title on him
2012 AIR CC 2712 (DEL)-Reversed(Para22)
(C) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.34— Succession Act (39 of 1925) , S.63— Title to immovable property – Claim on the basis of registered will – Plaintiff and defendant were brothers, and suit property belonged to their father – Plaintiff claimed title to suit property by placing reliance upon registered Will – A will must be proved in accordance with law – Trial court had upheld validity of will without discussing same in light of S 63 of Succession Act, 1925 and S 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 – Observation of High Court that requirement of examining attesting witnesses arises only in cases of disputes between legal heirs, was contrary to law – The will propounded by plaintiff was also surrounded by suspicious circumstances and plaintiff had failed to remove suspicion – Will propounded by plaintiff though registered would not confer any valid title
2012 AIR CC 2712 (DEL)-Reversed(Para27)
(D) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.34— Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.54— Title to immovable property – Claim on the basis of consideration receipt – Plaintiff claimed title to suit property by placing reliance upon receipt of Consideration / Affidavit – There was affidavit said to had been executed in favour of plaintiff by his father, along with a receipt of consideration, wherein father was said to have acknowledged receipt of full consideration for sale of suit property – Said instruments did not confer valid title upon plaintiff because as per S.54 of TP Act, title can be transferred only through deed of conveyance and recitals in said affidavit were not proved by examining any other independent witnesses
2012 AIR CC 2712 (DEL)-Reversed(Para28)
(E) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.34— Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.53A— Suit for recovery of possession – Doctrine of part-performance – Unless transferee in instrument of agreement to sale is able to prove that he has been in possession of the suit property, no benefit u/S. 53A will be given – Fact that plaintiff had filed suit for possession, along with other reliefs, showed that on date of filing of suit, plaintiff was not in possession of entire suit property – Since there was no possession with plaintiff, he cannot derive any benefit under doctrine of part-possession
