SHAKEEL AHMED versus SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 590, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 590 : 2023 INSC 1016
590
CASE DETAILS
SHAKEEL AHMED
v.
SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN
(Civil Appeal No.1598 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 01, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court whether justiﬁ ed in aﬃ  rming 
the judgment of the Trial Court whereby it decreed the suit for possession 
and mesne proﬁ ts ﬁ led by the respondent with respect to the property in 
question on the basis of unregistered documents namely a Power of Attorney, 
an agreement to sell, an aﬃ  davit and a will.
Deeds and Documents– Unregistered documents – Title with 
respect to immovable properties, if could be transferred on the basis 
of unregistered documents:
Held: No title could be transferred with respect to immovable 
properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis 
of an unregistered General Power of Attorney – The Registration Act, 1908 
clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration 
under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable 
right to approach a Court of Law on its basis – Even if the Agreement 
to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be 
said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in 
question – No right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred 
without a registered document – The judgment of this Court in the case 
of Suraj Lamps & Industries case lays down the same proposition – The 
embargo
put on registration of documents would not override the statutory 
provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents w.r.t 
immovable property – Argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that 
the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries would be prospective is also
591
misplaced – The requirement of compulsory registration and eﬀ ect on non-
registration emanates from the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property 
Act – Ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries only approves the provisions in 
the two enactments – Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the same 
view – Respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and 
mesne proﬁ ts against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the 
property in question whether as an owner or a licensee – Impugned judgment 
set aside, suit dismissed – Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17, 49 – Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882 – s.54.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr 183 
(2011) DLT 1 (SC); Ameer Minhaj Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and 
Others (2018) 7 SCC 639 : [2018] 5 SCR 173; Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi 
Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022; M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited 
Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2022 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1598 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2018 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No.191 of 2013.
Appearances:
Anant Vijay Palli, Nikhil Palli, Nishant Kumar, Deepak Goel, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Chandra Shekhar, Prashant Shekhar, Yogesh Pachauri, Sanjay Kumar 
Tyagi, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 
23.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.191 of 2013 
between Shakeel Ahmed and Syed Akhlaq Hussain, whereby the appeal 
SHAKEEL AHMED v. SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing 
the suit for possession and mesne proﬁ ts has been aﬃ  rmed.
2. The appellant is defendant in the suit for possession and mesne 
proﬁ ts instituted by the respondent with respect to the property in question. 
The suit was ﬁ led on the basis of a Power of Attorney, an agreement to 
sell, an aﬃ  davit and a will executed in favour of the respondent. The 
appellant, admittedly, was in possession of the property in question. The 
suit was contested on several grounds that the appellant was the owner of 
the property having received the same on the basis of a Hiba (oral gift) 
from its owner Laiq Ahmed his own brother. Secondly, that the suit was 
not maintainable as none of the documents on the basis of which the suit 
was ﬁ led were neither admissible nor enforceable under law. Both parties 
led evidence - oral and documentary. The Trial Court framed as many as 
eleven issues, which read as follows:
“1. Whether the plaintiﬀ  has locus-standi to ﬁ le the suit? OPP
2. Whether it is collusive suit of the plaintiﬀ  and the defendant’s 
brother, if so, its consequences? BPD
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, if so, 
whom and its consequences? BPD
4. Whether the suit is barred by provision of Order II Rule 2 CPC 
for want of suit for declaration? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiﬀ  came to Court without clean hands by 
suppressing material facts,
if so, its consequences? OPD
6. Whether the defendant was licencee in the suit property and it 
was terminated by notice dated 23.01.2008 by plaintiﬀ ’s predecessor 
in interest? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiﬀ  is entitled for decree of possession of suit 
property, as prayed in prayer clause (a), against the defendant? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiﬀ  is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, 
as prayed in prayer clause (b), against the defendant? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of 
damages of Rs.2,10,000/- as prayed in prayer clause (c), against 
the defendant? OPP
593
10. Whether the plaintiﬀ  is entitled for decree of damages @ 
Rs.10,000/- per month, as prayed in prayer clause (c), against the 
defendant, if so, for what period? OPP
11. Relief.”
3. Findings recorded by the Trial Court were that all the issues were 
decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent except issue 
no.8 and decree for possession along with mesne proﬁ ts was granted.
4. While in regular appeal ﬁ led under section 96 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908, the High Court conﬁ rmed the ﬁ nding with regard to the 
claim of the appellant regarding Hiba in his favour and held that the appellant 
had failed to prove the same. With respect to the other argument regarding 
suit being maintained on the basis of an unregistered document, the High 
Court, although in principle agreed but proceeded to uphold the decree of 
possession on the ground that the respondent had ﬁ led the suit as an Attorney 
for and on behalf of its owner Laiq Ahmed and that Laiq Ahmed was not 
objecting to the respondent seeking possession of the suit property. On this 
sole ground, it conﬁ rmed the decree of possession and dismissed the appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following 
submissions:
5.1. The Court below erred in decreeing the suit for possession and 
mesne proﬁ ts on the basis of unregistered documents namely 
Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Aﬃ  davit and a Will.
5.2. The Will, although ﬁ led, would be of no relevance in as much as it
will come into force on the death of the testator i.e. Laiq Ahmed, 
who was said to be still alive at the time of the presentation of the 
suit. The other documents like Agreement to Sell and General 
Power of Attorney would not confer any ownership right on the 
respondent nor could he derive any title thereunder.
5.3. The aﬃ  davit would also not confer any title. The unregistered 
agreement to sell by itself is a document which is not enforceable 
in law. However, its only admissibility would be for collateral 
purposes and not for claiming any rights thereunder of ownership 
in a Court of law.
SHAKEEL AHMED v. SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
6. Further argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the 
appellant had successfully proved the Hiba (oral gift) by his brother Laiq 
Ahmed in his favour by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. However, the 
courts below wrongly discarded the same and decided the issue against him.
7. Further, he referred to the reasoning given by the High Court that 
even though the documents relied upon by the respondent were not of any 
help but still the respondent could have maintained the suit for possession 
or mesne proﬁ ts as an Attorney and on behalf of Laiq Ahmed, the owner 
of the property. This reasoning, it was submitted, was untenable in as much 
as a reading of the plaint would clearly indicate that the suit was not ﬁ led 
by the respondent as Attorney for Laiq Ahmed. It was in the individual 
capacity of the respondent claiming his own right, title and interest under 
the unregistered documents referred to above. On such submissions, learned 
counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside 
and the suit be dismissed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that 
all the documents relied upon by the respondent as basis for the suit were the 
customary documents and they conferred full title on the respondent to be 
the owner of the property in question and, therefore, he can maintain the suit.
9. It was also submitted that there was a prohibition of registration
of documents of transfer/conveyance with respect to the area where the 
property in question is situate and, therefore, the transfers aﬀ ected under the 
customary documents was suﬃ  cient to confer title on the respondent. It was 
also submitted that the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries 
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.1, which was of the year 2011, had 
prospective application and would not have any bearing on the title of the 
respondents which came to him under the customary documents executed 
in the year 2008 much prior to the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps 
& Industries (supra).
10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be 
emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps 
and Industries (supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with 
1 
183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC)
595
respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement 
to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The 
Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires 
compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less 
a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if 
these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were 
registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired 
title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered 
agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of speciﬁ c performance in 
appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 
17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property 
Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable 
property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment 
of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the 
same proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments 
of this Court:
(i). Ameer Minhaj Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and 
Others
2
(ii). Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi
3
(iii). M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand 
Mitra & Anr.
4
12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override 
the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered
documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled 
position, the respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession 
and mesne proﬁ ts against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession 
of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee.
13. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the 
judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also 
2 
(2018) 7 SCC 639
3 
In Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022
4 
In SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2022
SHAKEEL AHMED v. SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
misplaced. The requirement of compulsory registration and eﬀ ect on non-
registration emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act and 
the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) 
only approves the provisions in the two enactments. Earlier judgments of 
this Court have taken the same view.
14. In case the respondent wanted to evict the appellant treating him 
to be a licensee, he could have maintained a suit on behalf of the true owner 
or the landlord under speciﬁ c instructions of Power of Attorney as landlord 
claiming to have been receiving rent from the appellant or as Attorney of 
the true owner to institute the suit on his behalf for eviction and possession. 
That being not the contents of the plaint, we are unable to agree with the 
reasoning given by the High Court in the impugned order.
15. For all the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment 
deserves to be set aside and the suit deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, 
the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the suit is 
dismissed.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Appeal allowed.
Divya Pandey