Pre-2011 GPA-Based Property Transfers are Valid if Acted Upon and Mutation Records Reflect Continuous Possession

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a property she purchased via a registered sale deed dated 19.04.2003 from her mother, Zahrunnissa

Zahrunnissa had acquired rights through an agreement of sale (1985) and an General Power of Attorney (GPA) and affidavit (1989) executed by Respondent No. 1 (Saraswathamma)

The Appellant’s family has been in possession since 1985

Conversely, Respondent No. 2 (husband of Respondent No. 1) claimed absolute ownership via a registered sale deed dated 13.03.1986 executed by his wife and initiated eviction proceedings (HRC No. 517/2003) against the Appellant’s father

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, granting an injunction based on possession but dismissing the prayer for declaration of title

1. Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property

2. Whether the sale deed executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent No. 2 in 1986 is valid given the prior agreement and delivery of possession to the Appellant's predecessor

3. Whether the relief of declaration was barred by limitation

The court applied Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates that the sale of immovable property be made only by a registered instrument

It relied on the principle from Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which clarified that SA/GPA/Will transactions do not confer title but can be used to protect possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or to seek specific performance.

the Suraj Lamp judgment applies prospectively from 11.10.2011 and does not disturb earlier transactions acted upon by municipal authorities

It also applied Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the presumption of power of attorney

The Court observed that Respondent No. 1 delivered physical possession and original title deeds to the Appellant's mother in 1985 upon receiving full consideration

Since Respondent No. 1 had already divested herself of possession and rights via the 1985 agreement and 1989 GPA, her subsequent 1986 sale deed to her husband (Respondent No. 2) was deemed an attempt to defeat the Appellant's rights

The Court noted that Respondent No. 2 failed to prove a landlord-tenant relationship and produced no rental vouchers or lease agreements

the description of the property mortgaged by Respondent No. 2 to his department differed from the suit schedule property

Regarding limitation, the Court held that since the amendment for declaration was allowed unconditionally in 2008, it relates back to the date of the suit's filing

As the Suraj Lamp precedent is prospective, the 1989 GPA and 2003 sale deed were treated as valid bases for completing title

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court's judgment regarding the dismissal of the declaration

It further directed that, per the Suraj Lamp guidelines, the Appellant is at liberty to obtain a formal registered deed of conveyance to fully complete the title

The Respondents were restrained from interfering with the Appellant’s possession