In a recent judgment¹, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the possessory rights of a plaintiff-respondent in a property dispute case. The defendant-appellant had been occupying the suit premises, but the plaintiff-respondent claimed ownership based on various documents, including an agreement to sell, a power of attorney, a possession memo, and a receipt of payment.

Facts
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit seeking the eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises, which were part of H-768, J.J. Colony, Shakarpur, Delhi. The plaintiff-respondent claimed ownership based on an agreement to sell, a power of attorney, a possession memo, and a receipt of payment. The defendant-appellant contested the suit, alleging that the documents had been manipulated but did not dispute their execution or the payment of sale consideration.

The trial court framed three issues: the alleged manipulation and fraudulent acquisition of documents, the plaintiff-respondent's right to eviction, and the entitlement to mesne profits. The trial court decided all the issues against the defendant-appellant, finding no evidence of misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining the documents. The court held that the plaintiff-respondent had established his right to the property and was entitled to eviction and mesne profits, albeit at a reduced rate.

The defendant-appellant appealed the decision, primarily questioning the validity of the documents presented by the plaintiff-respondent. The higher court granted leave to appeal but observed that the appellant had not raised this specific issue in the lower courts. Consequently, the court held that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law.

Observations
While an agreement to sell may not confer absolute title to a property, it can establish possessory rights in part performance of the agreement. The court noted that the agreement, along with the payment of sale consideration and possession given to the plaintiff-respondent, demonstrated his de facto possessory rights. The defendant-appellant's subsequent occupation of part of the property was deemed as a mere licensee and did not grant him ownership.

The court dismissed the significance of the power of attorney and the will executed by the defendant-appellant, stating that they did not confer any rights upon the plaintiff-respondent. The power of attorney did not result in the execution of a sale deed, rendering it useless. Additionally, the will's effect only arises upon the death of the testator, which had not occurred in this case.

The court emphasized that any practice or tradition recognizing agreements to sell, general powers of attorney, or wills as documents conferring rights in immovable property contravenes statutory law. The court referred to previous decisions that reiterated the need for the execution of a document of transfer, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to confer right and title in immovable property.

Conclusion
The judgment clarified that an agreement to sell does not transfer proprietary rights but grants possessory title, protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The prospective purchaser who fulfils their contractual obligations and lawfully possesses the property acquires possessory rights that cannot be infringed upon by the transferor or any subsequent claimants.

Considering the plaintiff-respondent's established possessory title and the defendant-appellant's occupation as a licensee, the court upheld the decree of eviction and mesne profits. The judgment emphasizes the importance of honouring possessory rights derived from valid agreements and highlights the need for proper execution and registration of transfer documents to confer ownership rights.

By - Lakshmi Raman