Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the purchaser-claimant’s suit for possession and mesne profits because an agreement to sell, power of attorney, affidavit and will did not establish the title asserted in his own name. Even registration of an agreement or power would not itself convey ownership. The High Court could not recast the suit as one brought for the true owner when the plaint claimed personal title. The statutory rule applied independently of the date of Suraj Lamps.
Issues
- Whether the relied-on documents conferred ownership sufficient for the pleaded possession suit.
- Whether the suit could instead be sustained as one instituted by an attorney for the true owner.
Provisions considered
- Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882An agreement to sell did not itself convey title. The plaintiff’s documents could not substitute for the conveyance necessary to support his asserted ownership. (¶ 10–14)
- Sections 17 and 49, Registration Act, 1908The statutory requirements and consequences of non-registration defeated reliance on these documents as a transfer of ownership; an administrative embargo could not override them. (¶ 10–13)
Held
- Neither the agreement to sell nor general power of attorney itself conveyed ownership, even if registered. The plaintiff could not obtain a possession decree on the personal title asserted through those documents. (¶ 10–12)
- The rule derived from the statutes and pre-existing law, so the contention that Suraj Lamps operated only prospectively did not validate the earlier transaction as a conveyance. (¶ 10–13)
- The alleged prohibition on registration in the area could not confer title through instruments that did not meet the statutory transfer requirements. (¶ 12)
- A properly framed action on behalf of the true owner or landlord under appropriate authority stood differently. This plaint was in the respondent’s own capacity, so the High Court’s attorney-based justification could not sustain it. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside and suit dismissed without costs. Pending applications disposed of. No declaration of title in the defendant’s favour granted.