New Delhi (ABC Live): The Supreme Court of India, in Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand (Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012), delivered on September 1, 2025, resolved a long-standing family property dispute. The Court ruled that an Agreement to Sell, GPA, affidavit, receipt, or even a registered Will does not confer valid ownership unless proved according to law. This decision set a clear precedent for Will and Title Disputes in India.

Legal Questions in Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand

1. Can Agreement to Sell, GPA, affidavit, and receipt create ownership rights?

2. Does a registered Will automatically confer title, or must it be proved?

3. Can Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act protect a plaintiff not in possession?

4. What happens when a Will fails—does succession revert to intestate distribution?

Supreme Court’s Findings

1. Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, Receipt — No Title

In Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand, the Court reaffirmed that only a registered sale deed transfers ownership (Sec. 54 TPA). Agreement to Sell creates a contractual right, GPA grants only agency powers, and affidavits/receipts do not convey title.

2. Will — Must Be Proved

The Court held that the registered Will failed because:

• No attesting witness testified (Sec. 68 Evidence Act).

• The Will excluded three of four children without explanation, creating suspicion.

• Registration alone was insufficient.

3. Section 53A TPA — Not Applicable

The plaintiff was not in possession; therefore, the doctrine of part performance did not apply.

4. Succession — Intestate Distribution

Since the Will was invalid, succession defaulted to intestate rules under the Hindu Succession Act. All heirs shared equally, and the purchaser’s rights were limited to the seller’s lawful share.

Judicial Correctness of Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand

The Supreme Court’s ruling was judicially correct:

• It enforced statutory proof requirements.

• It corrected errors by the lower courts.

• It balanced equities by protecting a bona fide purchaser’s rights.

However, the Court did not analyse Section 213 of the Succession Act, which requires probate in Delhi. Even if the Will had been proved, probate would have been essential before enforcing it.

Broader Impact

The Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand ruling strengthens succession law in India:

• Only registered sale deeds confer ownership.

• Wills excluding heirs face strict judicial scrutiny.

• Probate remains mandatory in Presidency towns.

• Equity protects bona fide purchasers within legal limits.

ABC Live Editorial Note

At ABC Live, we publish this analysis because Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand highlights how courts handle Will and Title Disputes in India. While mainstream reports focused on the family feud, our report examines the questions of law, statutory interpretation, and the importance of probate.

Key Takeaway

In Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand (2025), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that:

• Only a registered sale deed transfers ownership.

• A Will must be strictly proved and free of suspicion.

• Probate is mandatory in Delhi and Presidency towns.

• If a Will fails, succession reverts to heirs.

Explained: Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar Judgment