Unregistered Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney cannot transfer title to immovable property under Registration Act 1908

SC allowed appeal and dismissed suit for possession and mesne profits. Court held that unregistered Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney cannot transfer title to immovable property under Registration Act, 1908. No right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without registered document. Respondent could not maintain suit against appellant who was in possession as owner or licensee. Even registered agreement to sell would only permit claim for specific performance, not title transfer. Trial court's decree was set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against judgment and order for possession and mesne profits.

Analysis:
The judgment in question pertains to an appeal against a High Court decision in a suit for possession and mesne profits between the Appellant and the Respondent. The suit was based on a Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, and a will executed in favor of the Respondent. The Appellant contested the suit, claiming ownership through an oral gift (Hiba) from his brother and challenging the admissibility of the documents. The Trial Court decided in favor of the Respondent on most issues, granting possession and mesne profits. The High Court upheld the decision, rejecting the Appellant's claim of Hiba and allowing the suit based on the Respondent acting as an Attorney for the property owner. The Appellant argued against the reliance on unregistered documents and the Respondent's capacity to maintain the suit.

The Appellant contended that the unregistered documents, including the agreement to sell, Power of Attorney, and will, did not confer ownership rights on the Respondent. The Appellant claimed to have proven the oral gift but was disregarded by the courts. The Appellant challenged the High Court's reasoning that the suit was maintainable through the Respondent as an Attorney for the property owner, asserting that the suit was filed in the Respondent's individual capacity. The Respondent argued that the customary documents provided full title and ownership rights, citing a prohibition on registration in the property's area and the prospective application of relevant judgments.

The judgment emphasized that immovable property rights cannot be transferred without a registered document, citing relevant statutes. It referenced previous judgments to support this principle. The judgment rejected the argument that the embargo on registration could confer title based on unregistered documents. It also dismissed the prospective application of judgments, stating that the requirement for registration and its effects are statutory. The judgment concluded that the suit should be dismissed as the Respondent could not maintain it against the Appellant, who was in possession, whether as an owner or licensee.

In summary, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the suit. No costs were awarded, and pending applications were disposed of.

---