SHAKEEL AHMEDversusSYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN

                 [2023] 15 S.C.R. 590 : 2023 INSC 1016



                            CASE DETAILS

                          SHAKEEL AHMED
                                     v.
                      SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN
                     (Civil Appeal No.1598 of 2023)
                         NOVEMBER 01, 2023
          [VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
                             HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: High Court whether justified in affirming
the judgment of the Trial Court whereby it decreed the suit for possession
and mesne profits filed by the respondent with respect to the property in
question on the basis of unregistered documents namely a Power of Attorney,
an agreement to sell, an affidavit and a will.
     Deeds and Documents– Unregistered documents – Title with
respect to immovable properties, if could be transferred on the basis
of unregistered documents:
      Held: No title could be transferred with respect to immovable
properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis
of an unregistered General Power of Attorney – The Registration Act, 1908
clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration
under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable
right to approach a Court of Law on its basis – Even if the Agreement
to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be
said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in
question – No right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred
without a registered document – The judgment of this Court in the case
of Suraj Lamps & Industries case lays down the same proposition – The
embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory
provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents w.r.t
immovable property – Argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that
the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries would be prospective is also

                                    590
      SHAKEEL AHMED v. SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN                              591


misplaced – The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-
registration emanates from the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property
Act – Ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries only approves the provisions in
the two enactments – Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the same
view – Respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and
mesne profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the
property in question whether as an owner or a licensee – Impugned judgment
set aside, suit dismissed – Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17, 49 – Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 – s.54.
       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
      Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr 183
(2011) DLT 1 (SC); Ameer Minhaj Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and
Others (2018) 7 SCC 639 : [2018] 5 SCR 173; Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi
Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022; M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited
Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2022 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1598 of 2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2018 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No.191 of 2013.
     Appearances:
      Anant Vijay Palli, Nikhil Palli, Nishant Kumar, Deepak Goel, Advs.
for the Appellant.
    Chandra Shekhar, Prashant Shekhar, Yogesh Pachauri, Sanjay Kumar
Tyagi, Advs. for the Respondent.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                                 ORDER
     VIKRAM NATH, J.
     1. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated
23.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.191 of 2013
between Shakeel Ahmed and Syed Akhlaq Hussain, whereby the appeal
592          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 15 S.C.R.


was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing
the suit for possession and mesne profits has been affirmed.
      2. The appellant is defendant in the suit for possession and mesne
profits instituted by the respondent with respect to the property in question.
The suit was filed on the basis of a Power of Attorney, an agreement to
sell, an affidavit and a will executed in favour of the respondent. The
appellant, admittedly, was in possession of the property in question. The
suit was contested on several grounds that the appellant was the owner of
the property having received the same on the basis of a Hiba (oral gift)
from its owner Laiq Ahmed his own brother. Secondly, that the suit was
not maintainable as none of the documents on the basis of which the suit
was filed were neither admissible nor enforceable under law. Both parties
led evidence - oral and documentary. The Trial Court framed as many as
eleven issues, which read as follows:
        “1. Whether the plaintiff has locus-standi to file the suit? OPP
        2. Whether it is collusive suit of the plaintiff and the defendant’s
        brother, if so, its consequences? BPD
        3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, if so,
        whom and its consequences? BPD
        4. Whether the suit is barred by provision of Order II Rule 2 CPC
        for want of suit for declaration? OPP
        5. Whether the plaintiff came to Court without clean hands by
        suppressing material facts, if so, its consequences? OPD
        6. Whether the defendant was licencee in the suit property and it
        was terminated by notice dated 23.01.2008 by plaintiff’s predecessor
        in interest? OPP
        7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of suit
        property, as prayed in prayer clause (a), against the defendant? OPP
        8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction,
        as prayed in prayer clause (b), against the defendant? OPP
        9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of
        damages of Rs.2,10,000/- as prayed in prayer clause (c), against
        the defendant? OPP
      SHAKEEL AHMED v. SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN                                 593
                [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

        10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages @
        Rs.10,000/- per month, as prayed in prayer clause (c), against the
        defendant, if so, for what period? OPP
        11. Relief.”
     3. Findings recorded by the Trial Court were that all the issues were
decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent except issue
no.8 and decree for possession along with mesne profits was granted.
      4. While in regular appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, the High Court confirmed the finding with regard to the
claim of the appellant regarding Hiba in his favour and held that the appellant
had failed to prove the same. With respect to the other argument regarding
suit being maintained on the basis of an unregistered document, the High
Court, although in principle agreed but proceeded to uphold the decree of
possession on the ground that the respondent had filed the suit as an Attorney
for and on behalf of its owner Laiq Ahmed and that Laiq Ahmed was not
objecting to the respondent seeking possession of the suit property. On this
sole ground, it confirmed the decree of possession and dismissed the appeal.
    5. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following
submissions:
     5.1. The Court below erred in decreeing the suit for possession and
          mesne profits on the basis of unregistered documents namely
          Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Affidavit and a Will.
     5.2. The Will, although filed, would be of no relevance in as much as it
          will come into force on the death of the testator i.e. Laiq Ahmed,
          who was said to be still alive at the time of the presentation of the
          suit. The other documents like Agreement to Sell and General
          Power of Attorney would not confer any ownership right on the
          respondent nor could he derive any title thereunder.
     5.3. The affidavit would also not confer any title. The unregistered
          agreement to sell by itself is a document which is not enforceable
          in law. However, its only admissibility would be for collateral
          purposes and not for claiming any rights thereunder of ownership
          in a Court of law.
594             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 15 S.C.R.


     6. Further argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the
appellant had successfully proved the Hiba (oral gift) by his brother Laiq
Ahmed in his favour by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. However, the
courts below wrongly discarded the same and decided the issue against him.
      7. Further, he referred to the reasoning given by the High Court that
even though the documents relied upon by the respondent were not of any
help but still the respondent could have maintained the suit for possession
or mesne profits as an Attorney and on behalf of Laiq Ahmed, the owner
of the property. This reasoning, it was submitted, was untenable in as much
as a reading of the plaint would clearly indicate that the suit was not filed
by the respondent as Attorney for Laiq Ahmed. It was in the individual
capacity of the respondent claiming his own right, title and interest under
the unregistered documents referred to above. On such submissions, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside
and the suit be dismissed.
       8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
all the documents relied upon by the respondent as basis for the suit were the
customary documents and they conferred full title on the respondent to be
the owner of the property in question and, therefore, he can maintain the suit.
      9. It was also submitted that there was a prohibition of registration
of documents of transfer/conveyance with respect to the area where the
property in question is situate and, therefore, the transfers affected under the
customary documents was sufficient to confer title on the respondent. It was
also submitted that the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.1, which was of the year 2011, had
prospective application and would not have any bearing on the title of the
respondents which came to him under the customary documents executed
in the year 2008 much prior to the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps
& Industries (supra).
     10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be
emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps
and Industries (supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with


1     183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC)
       SHAKEEL AHMED v. SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN                               595
                 [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement
to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The
Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires
compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less
a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if
these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were
registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired
title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered
agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in
appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections
17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
      11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable
property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment
of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the
same proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments
of this Court:
     (i). Ameer Minhaj Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and
                 2
          Others
                                           3
     (ii). Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi
     (iii). M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand
                         4
            Mitra & Anr.
      12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override
the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered
documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled
position, the respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession
and mesne profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession
of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee.
     13. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the
judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also


2   (2018) 7 SCC 639
3   In Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022
4   In SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2022
596            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 15 S.C.R.


misplaced. The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-
registration emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act and
the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra)
only approves the provisions in the two enactments. Earlier judgments of
this Court have taken the same view.
      14. In case the respondent wanted to evict the appellant treating him
to be a licensee, he could have maintained a suit on behalf of the true owner
or the landlord under specific instructions of Power of Attorney as landlord
claiming to have been receiving rent from the appellant or as Attorney of
the true owner to institute the suit on his behalf for eviction and possession.
That being not the contents of the plaint, we are unable to agree with the
reasoning given by the High Court in the impugned order.
     15. For all the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment
deserves to be set aside and the suit deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the suit is
dismissed.
      16. There shall be no order as to costs.
      17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.


Headnotes prepared by:                                           Appeal allowed.
Divya Pandey