INTRODUCTION
A recent judgment1 delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court sheds light on the complex issue of eviction and possession rights in property disputes. The case revolves around a Plaintiff-Respondent who filed a Suit for eviction and mesne profits (“Suit”) against the Defendant-Appellant. The judgment provides valuable insights into the legal aspects of possession, ownership, and the significance of various documents such as agreements, power of attorney, and wills in determining property rights.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The Plaintiff-Respondent claimed ownership of a property based on an agreement to sell, a power of attorney, a memo of possession, a receipt of payment of sale consideration, and a will executed by the Defendant-Appellant. According to the Plaintiff, possession of the property was handed over to him in part performance of the agreement to sell. However, the Defendant-Appellant, while not disputing the execution of the documents, argued that they were manipulated on blank papers.

THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS
The trial court framed three issues:
(i) the alleged manipulation of documents,
(ii) the Plaintiff's right to evict the Defendant, and
(iii) the entitlement to mesne profits.

After examining the evidence, the trial court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, concluding that there was no evidence of manipulation or fraudulent obtaining of the documents. It further established the Plaintiff's possessory rights over the property and ordered eviction and payment of mesne profits, albeit at a lower rate than claimed.

The Defendant-Appellant, dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, appealed to the higher courts. The appellate courts upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the absence of evidence supporting document manipulation and the Plaintiff's established possessory rights. However, the Defendant Appellant did not raise the issue of the documents' validity as a substantial question of law in the trial court or the first appellate court. Consequently, the High Court held that this issue could not be raised in the appeal.

After having lost from all the three Courts below, the Defendant-Appellant to the Suit preferred the Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whose observations are as hereinbelow.

KEY POINTS FROM THE JUDGMENT
(1) Possessory Rights: While an agreement to sell may not confer absolute ownership, it can establish possessory rights in part performance of the agreement. In this case, the Plaintiff-Respondent's possessory rights, supported by the agreement, payment of sale consideration, and possession memo, were found to be legitimate and protected by law.

(2) Irrelevance of Power of Attorney and Will: The court declared that a power of attorney and a will executed during the lifetime of the transferor do not confer any right or title to the property. These documents only become effective upon the death of the executant and cannot validate possession or ownership rights beforehand

(3) Importance of Registered Conveyance Deed: The court highlighted that the prevailing practice recognizing agreements to sell, power of attorney, and wills as valid documents of transfer is in violation of statutory laws. 2 To confer right and title in immovable property, a registered conveyance deed in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act and Indian Registration Act is required.

(4) Protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Although an agreement to sell is not a transaction of sale, it can provide prospective purchasers with possessory rights under Section 53A of the TPA, 1882. These rights are protected, and the transferer or anyone claiming under them cannot disturb the purchaser's possession.

CONCLUSION
The judgment in this eviction and possession dispute clarifies the legal standing of possessory rights established through an agreement to sell. It emphasizes the significance of registered conveyance deeds for the transfer of property and highlights the limitations of power of attorney and wills in conferring property rights. The decision ultimately reaffirms the Plaintiff-Respondent's entitlement to eviction and mesne profits based on his lawful possessory title over the property in question. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for transferring property rights. It clarifies that while an agreement to sell may not confer absolute ownership, it can grant possessory rights to the buyer, which are protected under the law. This recognition of possessory rights prevents the transferor or any other party from disturbing the buyer's possession. Furthermore, the judgment emphasizes that documents such as a power of attorney and a will, executed during the lifetime of the transferor, do not confer any immediate rights or title to the property. Their validity and enforceability arise only after the death of the executant. In this case, since the testator is still alive, the will executed by the Defendant-Appellant does not confer any rights upon the Plaintiff-Respondent.

The judgment also criticizes any prevalent practice or tradition that recognizes agreements to sell, power of attorney, and wills as valid documents for property transfer. It clarifies that such practices contradict the specific provisions of the law, which require the execution and registration of a conveyance deed to confer right and title to immovable property.

DA LAW COMMENT
The judgment affirms possessory title established through the agreement to sell and lawful possession of the property. It highlights the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for transferring property rights and clarifies the limitations of documents such as power of attorney and wills in conferring immediate rights to the property. The judgment provides valuable guidance on the legal aspects of eviction and possession rights in property disputes, ensuring clarity and consistency in resolving similar cases in the future.