Registered conveyance controls title in immovable property; power of attorney and part performance cannot substitute for it.
Title in immovable property passes only through a registered conveyance; an agreement to sell, general power of attorney, receipt, affidavit and unproved registered will do not by themselves create valid title. A power of attorney is merely an agency instrument, and a will operates only on the testator's death and must be proved in accordance with law. Protection under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is available only where the transferee has taken or continued possession in part performance of a written contract and satisfies the statutory conditions; that protection was unavailable on the facts stated.
Issues: (i) Whether the documents comprising agreement to sell, general power of attorney, receipt, affidavit and registered will conferred valid title over the immovable property; (ii) Whether the plaintiff could claim protection under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Issue (i): Whether the documents comprising agreement to sell, general power of attorney, receipt, affidavit and registered will conferred valid title over the immovable property.
Analysis: A sale of immovable property of the requisite value can be effected only by a registered deed of conveyance. An agreement to sell does not by itself create any interest or charge in the property, and a general power of attorney is only an instrument of agency and not a transfer of title. A will operates only after the death of the testator and must be proved in accordance with law by compliance with the statutory requirements of attestation and proof. The will relied upon was not proved as required by law, and the surrounding circumstances remained suspicious and unexplained. The affidavit and receipt also did not amount to conveyance of title.
Conclusion: The documents did not confer valid title on the plaintiff.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff could claim protection under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Analysis: Protection under the doctrine of part performance is available only when the transferee has taken or continued possession in part performance of a written contract and satisfies the other statutory conditions. Since the plaintiff himself had sought possession, the record did not establish that he was in possession of the whole suit property so as to attract the doctrine.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of section 53A.
Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit stood dismissed, while the rights of the second defendant were left protected to the extent indicated in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: Title in immovable property passes only by a registered conveyance, a power of attorney does not transfer title, and statutory protection under part performance is unavailable without the requisite possession and compliance with the governing requirements for that defence.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
