Unregistered Will Cannot Override Registered Relinquishment Deed: Delhi High Court

“Oral Understanding Cannot Defeat Written Registered Title—Unproven Will Worth No More Than the Paper It's Written On”, In a decisive ruling Delhi High Court upholding a trial court decree of possession and permanent injunction in favour of the legal representatives of Narender Kumar Sharma, the original plaintiff.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, while delivering a reportable judgment, held that a registered Relinquishment Deed executed by all co-sharers confers a valid and binding title, and cannot be overridden by unregistered, unproved documents like a GPA, Agreement to Sell or an unproved Will.

The judgment reinforces a critical legal principle in property law: “Registered documents are superior in title and legal efficacy compared to oral agreements or unregistered instruments”. The Court found that no relief could be claimed by the appellants, Anand Versha and her son, based on vague claims of a family arrangement or an unproven Will allegedly executed by the plaintiff.

“Relinquishment Deed Was Never Cancelled—Mere Allegation of Fraud Is Insufficient Without Legal Challenge”

The suit property originally belonged to Late Smt. Chander Wati, whose son Narender Kumar Sharma (the plaintiff) was made the absolute owner through a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 30.11.2015, executed by all legal heirs, including the appellants. The appellants, however, claimed that this deed was executed only as part of a family arrangement to facilitate reconstruction of the property, and that the First Floor was to be transferred to them.

Rejecting this claim, the Court held:

“The Relinquishment Deed does not contain any recital to the effect that it had been executed for the purpose of reconstruction... no written evidence supports the alleged oral agreement.”

Further, both defendants admitted their signatures on the Relinquishment Deed, yet never challenged its validity through a counterclaim or separate suit, despite asserting that it was obtained through fraud. Justice Pushkarna noted:

“Mere assertion of fraud, without seeking cancellation of the document, is not sufficient. The Relinquishment Deed remains valid, operative, and binding.”

“Unregistered GPA/Agreement to Sell/Will Cannot Confer Title—No Document Beyond the Registered Deed Was Legally Effective”

The appellants had relied heavily on a set of unregistered documents dated 15.12.2015, including a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Receipt, and a Deed of Will allegedly executed in their favour. However, the Court held that:

“Such GPA/Will/Agreement to Sell documents do not convey title and cannot override the effect of a prior registered Relinquishment Deed.”

Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated:

“Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of SA/GPA/Will do not amount to transfer nor create title.”

“Will Unproven, Attesting Witness Not Examined – Mere Marking as Exhibit Is No Proof in Law”

One of the key contentions of the appellants was that the plaintiff had executed a Will dated 15.12.2015, bequeathing the First Floor to them. However, Justice Pushkarna found that:

“The Will is unregistered and unproven... no attesting witness has been examined to prove its execution, as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.”

She added:

“The mere marking of the Will as an Exhibit (OSR) during evidence does not dispense with the mandatory requirement to prove the document by calling attesting witnesses.”

“A Will, even if registered, does not operate during the lifetime of the testator. A disputed, unproven Will cannot override a valid, registered document like a Relinquishment Deed.”

“Power of Attorney Holder Who Was Also an Attesting Witness Was Competent to Depose”

The appellants challenged the testimony of the plaintiff’s son, Hitesh Sharma, who deposed as PW1 on the basis of a Power of Attorney. They argued that since the plaintiff was alive at the time of suit, his non-appearance attracted adverse inference.

Rejecting the objection, the Court held:

“PW1 was also an attesting witness to the Relinquishment Deed, and hence had personal knowledge of its execution. A PoA holder who is also a witness to the transaction is competent to depose.”

Referring to Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal (2025), the Court clarified that:

“A PoA holder can depose to facts within his personal knowledge, especially when he is an attesting witness to the document in question.”

“No Oral Evidence Can Vary a Registered Document – Sections 91 & 92 of Evidence Act Bar Any Contradiction”

Justice Pushkarna reiterated the bar under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act:

“No oral evidence can be led to contradict, vary or add to the terms of a registered Relinquishment Deed. The document is complete and binding on its face.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, she observed:

“It would be attended with great mischief if those instruments, upon which men’s rights depended, were liable to be impeached by loose collateral evidence.”

The Court found that the alleged oral family arrangement was unsupported, vague, and not corroborated by any document or third-party witness.

“Better Title Principle Prevails—Plaintiff with Registered Relinquishment Deed Entitled to Possession”

Summing up the principle of competing titles, the Court cited Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma (2023):

“The plaintiff has a registered Relinquishment Deed in his favour—this constitutes better legal title. The defendants cannot resist eviction based on unproven and unregistered documents.”

Despite having lived in the property for decades, the Court found the appellants’ possession to be that of licensees, lawfully terminated by legal notice. Their continued occupation after revocation of license gave rise to the plaintiff’s valid cause of action for possession.

No Interference Warranted in Trial Court’s Decree – Appeal Dismissed

The High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated evidence, applied settled law, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff’s legal representatives.

“The appellants failed to establish any right, title or interest in the suit property... No perversity or legal error is found in the trial court’s findings. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

The Court, however, upheld the trial court’s denial of mesne profits, noting that no sufficient evidence was led to support the claimed rental value.

Date of Decision: 28 January 2026