Unregistered documents like Agreements to Sell do not confer title for maintaining a suit for possession.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC challenging a Trial Court judgment dated 19.09.2022, which dismissed his suit for possession of immovable property.

The Appellant claimed ownership based on an unregistered Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, and Receipt dated 24.04.1996, asserting he purchased the suit property for ₹25,000/-.

He alleged that while he was working in Uttarakhand, the Respondent (Defendant) illegally trespassed into the property in December 2014.

Conversely, the Respondent claimed his brother purchased the property in 2000 and that the Respondent had constructed a building on the site in 2014.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Appellant failed to prove ownership.

1. Whether the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and entitled to a decree of possession.

2. Whether the suit was maintainable based on unregistered title documents.

3. Whether the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title regardless of the weakness of the Respondent's title.

The Court applied Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Registration Act, 1908, which mandate that ownership of immovable property can only be transferred through a registered instrument.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana (2012), which clarified that an Agreement to Sell or GPA does not confer title.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle established in Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (2023), holding that a suit for possession is not maintainable based on unregistered documents when the defendant is in physical possession.

The Court observed that although the identity of the suit property was established, the Appellant’s claim rested entirely on unregistered documents (Agreement to Sell, GPA, and Receipt) dated 24.04.1996.

Under Indian law, such documents do not create any right, title, or interest in immovable property.

The Court reasoned that since the Appellant was not in possession, he could not seek protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Regarding the Respondent’s title, the Court held that in a suit for possession, the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case; the Respondent’s alleged lack of title is irrelevant if the Appellant fails to prove a superior registered title.

The Court found no evidence of a registered Sale Deed that would entitle the Appellant to evict the Respondent.

The Court held that unregistered documents cannot be the basis for a suit for possession and mesne profits against a party in actual possession.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld.