A plaintiff facing a registered competing title must seek declaratory relief; possession simpliciter is insufficient.

In 1952, the Society entered into an agreement to sell a plot to Sohan Singh, subject to a covenant that he construct a house within three years. In 1954, Sohan Singh wrote to the Society stating that he could not undertake construction and requesting transfer of the plot to Gurbax Singh.

The Society subsequently executed a registered sale deed in Gurbax Singh’s favour in 1960; Gurbax Singh had taken possession and built a house on the plot.

Sohan Singh’s legal heirs filed a suit for possession in 1975, alleging that the transfer was fraudulent. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court considered the appeal against those decisions.

1. Whether the suit for possession was barred by limitation under the applicable provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963

2. Whether the plaintiffs had an enforceable title or right to possession under the 1952 agreement to sell, including through Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

3. Whether a suit for possession simpliciter was maintainable when the defendant relied on a registered sale deed and the plaintiffs’ title was disputed

4. Whether Sohan Singh’s conduct and letter of 4 October 1954 estopped the plaintiffs from asserting rights in the plot

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires a suit for specific performance to be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance or, where no date is fixed, from notice of refusal; Article 59 prescribes three years to seek cancellation or setting aside of an instrument from when the relevant facts become known; and Article 64 prescribes twelve years for recovery of possession based on prior possession from the date of dispossession, with Section 27 providing for extinguishment of the right to property upon expiry of the prescribed period.

Under Sections 54 and 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, an agreement to sell does not itself convey title; Section 53A protects possession only where its requirements—including possession in part performance and performance or willingness to perform the transferee’s obligations—are met.

Under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, estoppel requires a representation, reliance, alteration of position, and circumstances making it inequitable to reverse that position.

Under Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, where a defendant’s claim raises a serious cloud over the plaintiff’s title, a plaintiff seeking possession must also seek appropriate declaratory relief.

The Court held that, even on the plaintiffs’ asserted date of knowledge in 1963, a claim for specific performance or cancellation of the 1960 sale deed had to be brought within three years, while the 1975 suit was also outside the twelve-year period applicable to recovery of possession.

The 1952 agreement did not confer ownership, and Sohan Singh’s 1954 letter—followed by the transfer, construction, and Gurbax Singh’s possession—showed that he had abandoned the construction obligation and his claim under the agreement.

Because the registered sale deed in Gurbax Singh’s favour created a serious dispute over title, a possession-only suit was insufficient without appropriate declaratory relief.

The Court also found that Sohan Singh’s representation induced the transfer and Gurbax Singh’s changed position, supporting estoppel and acquiescence; Section 53A did not assist the plaintiffs because Sohan Singh had neither continued in possession nor remained willing to perform the agreement.

The appeal was dismissed, the judgments below were upheld, and no order as to costs was made.