AI-generated image for representational purposes
NEW DELHI: A decades-old family dispute over a Delhi house near Balmiki Gate recently closed in the Supreme Court, with a verdict that reaffirms a long-standing legal principle — only a registered sale deed can transfer ownership of immovable property, not a Will which isn’t legally proven, General Power of Attorney, or Agreement to Sell.On September 1, 2025 the Supreme Court dismissed a man named Suresh’s claim that his late father had given him sole ownership of the house through a registered Will, along with supporting papers such as a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, affidavit, and receipt. His brother Ramesh, who sold half of the same property to another buyer, was found to have acted lawfully — but only concerning his own share, according to an ET report.
What sparked the case?
Suresh and Ramesh claimed to have inherited their father’s Delhi property after his death in April 1997. Suresh asserted that the property belonged entirely to him, citing a Will dated May 16, 1996, and additional documents. He also alleged that Ramesh, living on the premises, was merely a licensee who later trespassed and sold half the house without consent.Ramesh, however, denied this, claiming that their father had verbally given him the property back in 1973. He also pointed out that Suresh had earlier acknowledged their father’s ownership in another case, later withdrawn in 1997.When the dispute first went to trial, the Additional District Judge ruled in favour of Suresh, upholding the documents as valid. The Delhi High Court agreed. But Ramesh persisted — and in appeal, the Supreme Court reversed both orders, delivering a detailed ruling on how property ownership must be legally proved.
SC’s judgment
After analysing the evidence and legal submissions, the Supreme Court concluded that the property in question — originally owned by the brothers’ late father — devolved equally upon all his Class-I legal heirs under intestate succession.The bench held that since the Will produced by Suresh was never legally proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and no valid sale deed existed, the property could not be treated as his exclusive ownership.The Court reaffirmed that only a registered sale deed can transfer ownership of immovable property, not a Will (if unproved), General Power of Attorney, or Agreement to Sell.It further observed that while Ramesh had executed a sale deed transferring 50 per cent of the house to a third-party purchaser, the transaction could be recognised only to the extent of his own lawful share in the property. Any purported sale beyond that share had no legal validity.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Delhi High Court and the trial court, both of which had earlier ruled in Suresh’s favour. The top court dismissed Suresh’s suit in entirety and restored the legal position that the property remained jointly owned by all heirs, subject to lawful partition or settlement.
What the ruling means
The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights several critical legal principles for property disputes. First, in cases where a Will is not legally proved, only a registered sale deed executed in accordance with Sections 5 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act can transfer ownership of immovable property; informal documents like a GPA, Agreement to Sell, receipts, or affidavits cannot confer title.Second, the court reaffirmed that a registered Will alone does not guarantee ownership unless it is properly proved by examining at least one attesting witness, as required by law.Third, protection under Section 53A for part performance of a contract requires actual possession of the property; a claim without possession cannot be upheld.In practical terms, the ruling underscores that succession and inheritance disputes cannot be resolved through informal documentation alone. It also clarifies that even if a family member sells their share of a property, the sale is valid only for the portion they legally own — and does not affect the rights of other heirs.