GPA Doesn’t Transfer Ownership, But Equitable Possession Can’t Be Ignored: Telangana High Court Upholds Suit for Title Declaration Despite Lack of Sale Deed

"At this preliminary stage, it cannot be held that the suit is barred by law or that the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action" – Justice N. Tukaramji rules against mechanical rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11. High Court of Telangana delivered a significant ruling in Thammishetty Ramulu vs Bollam Manjula, clarifying the nuanced interplay between legal title and equitable possession. Justice N. Tukaramji declined to reject a civil suit based solely on the absence of a registered sale deed, emphasizing that a plaint asserting continuous possession, full consideration, and part performance under a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (AGPA) disclosed triable issues.

The revision petition, filed by the defendants, challenged the trial court’s dismissal of their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, cancellation of a subsequent gift deed, and injunction.

“Mere Absence of Registered Sale Deed Not Fatal Where Pleadings Assert Full Consideration and Possession” – High Court Refuses to Summarily Reject Suit Based on AGPA

The plaintiff’s claim traced back to a registered AGPA executed on 08.03.2006 by Defendant No.1 (the revision petitioner), in favour of the plaintiff’s husband, for a sale consideration of ₹38,000. Possession of the plot was delivered contemporaneously, and the plaintiff continued in possession after her husband’s demise in 2012. A residential house was built on the plot, and the plaintiff’s name was mutated in municipal records.

The dispute escalated after the original owner executed a registered gift deed in favour of his wife (Defendant No.2) on 25.05.2022, allegedly to re-assert ownership. The plaintiff claimed that this action was mala fide and designed to evict her illegally. She approached the trial court seeking a declaration of title, perpetual injunction, and cancellation of the gift deed.

In response, the defendants contended that the AGPA, even if registered, did not convey title, and that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation, having been filed nearly 19 years after the AGPA execution. Relying on a catena of judgments including Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 and M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448, the defendants insisted that no title flows from an AGPA, and thus, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

"Substance of Transaction Must Be Examined, Not Its Nomenclature" – Court Relies on Supreme Court’s 2025 Ruling in Vinod Infra

Justice Tukaramji turned to the settled principle that while determining an application for rejection of plaint, only the averments in the plaint must be considered, without delving into the defence. He noted:

“It is well settled that while considering an application for rejection of a plaint, the Court must confine itself to the averments in the plaint and cannot look into the defence raised by the defendants.”

Crucially, the Court examined the contents of the AGPA and found that the document referred to Defendant No.1 as “Vendor” and the plaintiff’s husband as “Purchaser.” It recorded that the entire sale consideration was paid, possession was handed over, and the document even authorised the plaintiff’s husband to execute sale deeds in favour of third parties.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 630, the Court reiterated that:

“The true character of a transaction must be gathered from its contents and not its nomenclature.”

The High Court held that although the AGPA by itself cannot transfer legal title, the assertion of possession, consideration, mutation records, and the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provided a legally sustainable basis for seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs.

“Limitation Cannot Be Decided Without Trial Where Facts Are Disputed” – Mixed Question of Law and Fact Must Be Tried, Not Rejected at Threshold

On the issue of limitation, the Court made a categorical observation:

“Whether the cause of action arose upon execution of the gift deed dated 25.05.2022, or earlier, is a matter of factual determination.”

Rejecting the defendant’s attempt to summarily scuttle the suit based on limitation, the Court held that limitation involving disputed facts is a mixed question of law and fact, and must be tried after framing of issues. Citing Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (2019) 15 SCC 389, the Court held that such determination cannot be made under Order VII Rule 11.

The plaintiff had claimed that her cause of action arose only when the gift deed was executed and threats of dispossession were made, which warranted judicial scrutiny through evidence.

Suit Raises Triable Issues Based on Equitable Possession and Alleged Fraud; Not Liable for Rejection

In refusing to interfere with the trial court’s order, Justice Tukaramji concluded:

“The plaint, when read as a whole, discloses a prima facie cause of action based on part performance and agency coupled with interest, as well as allegations of fraud and mala fides in the subsequent execution of the gift deed.”

The Court affirmed that even though strict legal ownership under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act was absent, the plaintiff’s claims rested on equitable grounds, supported by longstanding possession and factual assertions which must be tested at trial.

Reiterating that a plaint is not liable to be thrown out at the inception merely for absence of formal title deed, the Court observed:

“All questions relating to title, possession, limitation, and validity of the gift deed shall be determined during trial on their own merits.”

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the trial was directed to proceed on merits.

Date of Decision: 13 October 2025