SHAKEEL AHMED   (APPELLANT)  Vs.   SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN    (RESPONDENT)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1598 OF 2023

(2JB, Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal JJ., delivered by Vikram Nath J.)

Facts: The present 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 was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits has been affirmed.

Issue: Whether the suit for possession and mesne profits on the basis of unregistered documents namely Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Affidavit and a Will is maintainable?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

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. 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. 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.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

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.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “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 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 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.”