Introduction

The recognition of housing as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has evolved significantly through judicial interpretation and legislative intervention. The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 encompasses not merely the right to exist, but the right to live with human dignity, which includes adequate shelter and housing. This judicial evolution has culminated in comprehensive regulatory frameworks designed to protect homebuyers and ensure sustainable real estate development across the country.

The intersection of constitutional rights and real estate regulation represents a critical area of Indian jurisprudence, where the apex court has repeatedly intervened to balance developmental needs with fundamental rights. The establishment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), alongside various Supreme Court interventions, demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to transforming housing from a mere commodity into a recognized fundamental entitlement.

Constitutional Foundation: Housing Under Article 21

Evolution of Article 21 Interpretation

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law,” has undergone expansive judicial interpretation since the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case in 1978 [1]. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life is not merely a right to animal existence but encompasses the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it.

In the seminal case of Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [2], the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the right to shelter forms part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. The Court observed that shelter is one of the basic human needs and the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure that every citizen has access to adequate housing. This interpretation has formed the bedrock of all subsequent housing-related jurisprudence in India.

The constitutional mandate extends beyond mere acknowledgment of housing as a fundamental right; it creates positive obligations on the state to actively ensure access to housing for all citizens. This has been reinforced through various judicial pronouncements that have established housing not as a directive principle but as an enforceable fundamental right with immediate obligations on the state machinery.

Judicial Expansion of Housing Rights

The Supreme Court’s approach to housing rights has been progressively expansive, moving from passive recognition to active enforcement mechanisms. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [3], the Court established that the right to life includes the right to basic human needs, including housing, which must be available to every citizen as a matter of constitutional guarantee.

This constitutional framework has provided the foundation for challenging inadequate housing policies, forced evictions, and substandard living conditions. The Court has emphasized that housing rights cannot be subject to the whims of administrative convenience or developmental priorities that disregard constitutional mandates. The judicial interpretation has created a robust framework where housing rights are protected against both state and private actors who might otherwise compromise these fundamental entitlements.

Real Estate Regulation Framework

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, represents a watershed moment in Indian real estate regulation, establishing comprehensive mechanisms to protect homebuyer interests while ensuring transparent and accountable real estate development practices. The Act was enacted following widespread malpractices in the real estate sector, including project delays, diversion of funds, and misleading advertisements that left thousands of homebuyers in distress.

Under Section 3 of RERA, no promoter can advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase any plot, apartment or building in any real estate project without registering the project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority [4]. This mandatory registration requirement ensures that all real estate projects meet specific criteria regarding approvals, land title, and financial viability before being offered to potential buyers.

The Act establishes a tripartite structure comprising the Real Estate Regulatory Authority at the state level, the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, and the central advisory council. Section 20 of RERA mandates that 70% of amounts realized from allottees must be deposited in a separate account and used only for construction of the project and payment for the land cost [4]. This provision directly addresses the problem of fund diversion that had plagued the sector for decades.

Regulatory Authority Powers and Functions

The Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under RERA possesses extensive powers to regulate the real estate sector effectively. Under Section 35 of the Act, the Authority has the power to impose penalties up to 10% of the estimated cost of the real estate project, or in case of continuing defaults, up to 10% of the cost of the project for each month during which such default continues [4].

The Authority’s jurisdiction extends to investigating complaints, conducting inquiries, and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements. Section 31 empowers the Authority to investigate suo-moto or on complaints regarding violations of the Act, while Section 37 provides for the recovery of interest, penalty, and compensation as land revenue, ensuring effective enforcement mechanisms.

These regulatory powers are designed to create a deterrent effect against malpractices while providing accessible remedies to aggrieved homebuyers. The Authority’s quasi-judicial powers enable it to pass orders that are binding on all parties, creating an effective dispute resolution mechanism that operates parallel to traditional civil courts but with specialized expertise in real estate matters.

Consumer Protection Integration

The integration of RERA with existing consumer protection laws has created a comprehensive framework for homebuyer protection. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, specifically recognizes real estate services as goods and services covered under its purview, enabling consumers to approach consumer forums for redressal of grievances related to housing purchases.

This dual protection mechanism ensures that homebuyers have multiple avenues for seeking redress, whether through specialized RERA authorities or consumer protection forums. The Supreme Court has endorsed this integrated approach, recognizing that housing as a fundamental right requires multifaceted protection mechanisms that address both regulatory compliance and consumer rights simultaneously.

Supreme Court Interventions in Real Estate Sector

Landmark Judgments on Project Delays and Fund Diversion

The Supreme Court has consistently intervened in cases involving project delays and fund diversions, recognizing these as violations of fundamental rights of homebuyers. In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Union of India [5], the Court addressed the issue of incomplete real estate projects and emphasized the need for effective regulatory mechanisms to protect homebuyer interests.

The Court has established that delayed possession of apartments amounts to deficiency in service and entitles homebuyers to compensation. This principle has been consistently applied across various cases, creating a legal framework where developers cannot escape liability for delays without valid justification. The judicial approach has transformed the real estate landscape by making developers accountable for their commitments and timelines.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recognized that project delays not only cause financial harm but also violate the fundamental right to housing by denying citizens access to shelter within reasonable timeframes. This constitutional perspective has elevated housing-related disputes from mere contractual matters to constitutional issues requiring urgent judicial intervention.

Retroactive Application of RERA

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the retroactive application of RERA to ongoing projects, ensuring that even projects that commenced before the Act’s implementation would be subject to its regulatory framework [6]. This decision was crucial in ensuring that thousands of homebuyers in ongoing projects would receive protection under the new regulatory regime.

The Court reasoned that the Act’s beneficial provisions aimed at protecting homebuyers should not be denied to those who had already invested in ongoing projects. This interpretation reflected the Court’s commitment to substantive justice over procedural technicalities, ensuring that the legislative intent to protect homebuyers was given full effect regardless of the timing of project commencement.

This judicial approach has had far-reaching implications, bringing virtually the entire real estate sector under RERA’s regulatory umbrella and ensuring uniform protection for all homebuyers, regardless of when they made their investments. The decision has prevented developers from exploiting transitional provisions to escape regulatory oversight.

Enforcement of Homebuyer Rights

The Supreme Court has developed a comprehensive jurisprudence around enforcement of homebuyer rights, establishing clear remedies for various types of violations. In cases involving non-delivery of possession, the Court has consistently awarded compensation at rates that make violations commercially unviable for developers, creating strong incentives for compliance.

The Court has also addressed issues related to carpet area calculations, common area charges, and modification of approved plans, establishing clear standards that prevent developers from exploiting ambiguities in agreements to the detriment of homebuyers. These judicial interventions have created a predictable legal framework that benefits both genuine developers and homebuyers.

Stressed Real Estate Projects and Revival Mechanisms

Identification and Classification of Stressed Projects

Stressed real estate projects represent a significant challenge in the Indian real estate sector, affecting thousands of homebuyers who have invested their life savings in incomplete or delayed projects. The identification of stressed projects typically involves assessment of various factors including construction progress, financial viability, regulatory compliance, and developer credibility.

The Supreme Court has recognized that stressed projects require specialized intervention mechanisms that balance the interests of homebuyers, creditors, and other stakeholders. The Court has emphasized that while commercial considerations are important, the fundamental right to housing of homebuyers cannot be compromised in resolution processes.

Various High Courts and the Supreme Court have developed case-specific remedies for stressed projects, including appointment of monitoring committees, replacement of developers, and in extreme cases, liquidation with appropriate compensation mechanisms. These judicial interventions have prevented complete loss of homebuyer investments while ensuring that unviable projects are not allowed to continue indefinitely.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Application

The application of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to real estate projects has created additional complexities in the resolution of stressed projects. The Supreme Court has clarified that homebuyers are financial creditors under the IBC, giving them significant rights in insolvency proceedings involving real estate developers.

In Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartment Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Limited [7], the Supreme Court addressed the balance between homebuyer rights and creditor interests in insolvency proceedings. The Court emphasized that resolution plans must adequately protect homebuyer interests and cannot treat them merely as unsecured creditors.

This judicial approach has ensured that homebuyers receive priority treatment in insolvency proceedings, recognizing their dual status as both creditors and holders of fundamental rights to housing. The Court’s intervention has prevented resolution plans that would have left homebuyers without adequate protection or compensation.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

The Supreme Court has actively promoted alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for stressed real estate projects, recognizing that traditional litigation may not provide timely relief to distressed homebuyers. The Court has endorsed mediation and conciliation processes that can provide faster resolution while preserving the interests of all stakeholders.

These alternative mechanisms have proven particularly effective in cases where projects are commercially viable but face temporary financial constraints or management issues. The Court’s approach has enabled the completion of numerous stalled projects through negotiated settlements that ensure homebuyer protection while maintaining project viability.

Regulatory Compliance and Monitoring

State-Level Implementation Variations

The implementation of RERA across different states has shown significant variations in effectiveness and scope of regulation. While the central Act provides a uniform framework, state rules and regulations have created different standards of protection and enforcement mechanisms across jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court has noted these variations and has occasionally intervened to ensure uniform implementation of RERA provisions across states. The Court has emphasized that variations in state rules cannot dilute the fundamental protections provided under the central Act, ensuring consistent homebuyer protection regardless of geographical location.

States like Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka have developed comprehensive RERA rules with strong enforcement mechanisms, while some other states have been slower in establishing effective regulatory frameworks. The judicial oversight has played a crucial role in ensuring that all states meet minimum standards of homebuyer protection.

Monitoring and Compliance Mechanisms

Effective monitoring and compliance mechanisms are essential for ensuring that RERA’s objectives are achieved in practice. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for regular monitoring of project progress, financial compliance, and adherence to promised delivery timelines.

The Court has supported the establishment of web-based monitoring systems that enable real-time tracking of project progress and compliance status. These systems have enhanced transparency and accountability while providing homebuyers with access to accurate information about their investments.

Regular auditing and inspection mechanisms have been endorsed by the Court as essential tools for preventing violations before they cause significant harm to homebuyers. The judicial approach has favored preventive rather than merely punitive measures in ensuring regulatory compliance.

Financial Protection Mechanisms

Escrow Account Requirements

Section 4(2)(l)(D) of RERA requires promoters to maintain separate accounts for each project and deposit seventy percent of amounts realized from allottees in scheduled banks [4]. This escrow account mechanism ensures that homebuyer funds are protected from diversion to other projects or purposes.

The Supreme Court has strictly enforced these escrow account requirements, treating violations as serious breaches that warrant immediate intervention. The Court has appointed monitoring committees to oversee compliance with escrow requirements in cases where violations have been detected.

These financial protection mechanisms have significantly reduced instances of fund diversion, ensuring that homebuyer investments are used exclusively for the intended projects. The judicial oversight has made these provisions more effective by ensuring swift enforcement action against violators.

Insurance and Guarantee Mechanisms

While RERA does not mandate insurance for real estate projects, the Supreme Court has encouraged the development of insurance and guarantee mechanisms that can provide additional protection to homebuyers. The Court has noted that insurance mechanisms could provide faster relief in cases of developer default or project abandonment.

Some states have explored title insurance and project completion insurance mechanisms that could provide comprehensive protection to homebuyers. The judicial support for such mechanisms has encouraged their development and adoption across various jurisdictions.

Impact Assessment and Future Directions

Effectiveness of Current Framework

The current regulatory framework combining constitutional rights recognition, RERA implementation, and judicial oversight has significantly improved homebuyer protection in India. Data from various RERA authorities shows substantial improvements in project registration, compliance with delivery timelines, and resolution of homebuyer grievances.

The Supreme Court’s active intervention has ensured that the regulatory framework operates effectively, with regular judicial review preventing regulatory capture and ensuring that homebuyer interests remain paramount. The Court’s approach has created a culture of compliance in the real estate sector.

However, challenges remain in terms of enforcement capacity, inter-agency coordination, and addressing legacy issues in pre-RERA projects. The judicial system continues to play a crucial role in addressing these challenges through case-specific interventions and systemic reforms.

Emerging Challenges and Solutions

The real estate sector continues to evolve with new challenges including technology integration, sustainability requirements, and changing consumer preferences. The Supreme Court has shown adaptability in addressing these emerging challenges while maintaining focus on fundamental homebuyer protection.

Climate change considerations and sustainable housing requirements are increasingly being recognized by the Court as integral to the right to housing as a fundamental right under Article 21. This evolution reflects the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation and its adaptation to contemporary challenges.

The integration of digital technologies in real estate transactions and regulation presents both opportunities and challenges that require judicial guidance to ensure that technological advancement enhances rather than compromises homebuyer protection.

Conclusion

The recognition of housing as a fundamental right under Article 21 has transformed the Indian real estate landscape through a combination of constitutional interpretation, legislative intervention, and judicial oversight. The Supreme Court’s active role in protecting homebuyer interests while ensuring balanced regulation has created a framework that promotes both rights protection and sectoral growth.

The establishment of RERA, combined with consistent judicial enforcement, has significantly improved transparency, accountability, and consumer protection in the real estate sector. While challenges remain, particularly in addressing stressed projects and ensuring uniform implementation across states, the constitutional foundation and regulatory framework provide a solid basis for continued improvement.

The evolution of housing rights jurisprudence in India demonstrates the potential for constitutional provisions to drive practical improvements in citizen welfare through active judicial interpretation and enforcement. The Supreme Court’s approach has established India as a leader in constitutional protection of housing rights while maintaining a viable regulatory framework for real estate development.

Future developments will likely focus on strengthening enforcement mechanisms, addressing emerging challenges related to sustainability and technology, and ensuring that the fundamental right to housing remains accessible and meaningful for all citizens regardless of their economic status or geographical location.

References

[1] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/ 

[2] Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1924821/ 

[3] Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78536/ 

[4] Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2158 

[5] Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited v. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416. 

[6] Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2021) 9 SCC 214. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-application-of-rera-real-estate-projects-ongoing-at-acts-commencement-185419 

[7] Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartment Welfare Association v. NBCC (India) Limited, (2021) 8 SCC 328. 

[8] Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 

[9] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The post Housing as a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: Supreme Court’s Role in Real Estate Regulation and Protection of Homebuyers appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Abstract

The Supreme Court of India’s landmark decision in Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. has crystallized a fundamental principle of Indian property law: property registration alone does not confer ownership [1]. This judgment has profound implications for property transactions, title verification, and legal practitioners’ approach to due diligence. This article examines the legal framework governing property registration and ownership, analyzes the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and explores the practical implications for stakeholders in real estate transactions.

Introduction

The relationship between property registration and ownership has been a cornerstone of Indian property jurisprudence, yet the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Mahnoor Fatima Imran case has reinforced critical distinctions that practitioners must understand. The case involved 53 acres of land in Raidurg Panmaktha village, Telangana, where parties claiming ownership through registered sale deeds were denied protection against dispossession due to defective title chains.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder that registration under the Registration Act, 1908, while essential for creating a public record, does not automatically validate the underlying transaction or confer unimpeachable title. The decision has significant ramifications for property buyers, legal practitioners, and financial institutions across India.

Legal Framework: Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882

The Registration Act, 1908: Mandatory Registration Requirements

Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates compulsory registration for specific categories of documents affecting immovable property [2]. The provision states that instruments of gift, non-testamentary instruments creating, declaring, assigning, limiting, or extinguishing rights in immovable property valued at ₹100 and above, and leases exceeding one year must be registered.

The fundamental purpose of registration is threefold: to create a permanent public record, to provide notice to the world of the transaction, and to prevent fraudulent dispositions [3]. However, as the Supreme Court clarified in Mahnoor Fatima Imran, “registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed [but] is not to confer an unimpeachable validity on all such registered documents.”

Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Sale and Title Transfer

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines sale as “a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised” [4]. The provision mandates that for tangible immovable property valued above ₹100, such transfer must be effected by a registered instrument. Crucially, the section distinguishes between a contract for sale and an actual sale, emphasizing that an agreement to sell does not, by itself, create any interest in or charge on the property.

The Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana established that property can only be validly transferred through a registered sale deed, and that General Power of Attorney sales do not constitute valid transfers of immovable property [5].

The Mahnoor Fatima Imran Case: Facts and Legal Analysis

Factual Background

The dispute in Mahnoor Fatima Imran arose from a complex chain of events spanning several decades. In 1975, 99.07 acres of land, including the disputed 53 acres, were declared surplus under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and vested in the State government [6]. Subsequently, in 1982, the original owners’ General Power of Attorney holder executed an unregistered agreement to sell 125 acres (later amended to 99 acres) to Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society.

The Society, relying on this unregistered agreement and a subsequently “revalidated” document, executed registered sale deeds in favor of various individuals, including the respondents. These purchasers claimed possession and sought writ protection against dispossession by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC).

Supreme Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing multiple legal principles:

Invalidity of Unregistered Agreements

The Court held that since the 1982 agreement was unregistered and never formalized through a conveyance deed, it could not confer valid title [7]. The Court observed that “there can be no valid transfer of title in the absence of a proper registered deed.”

Ineffectiveness of Subsequent Registration

The judgment established that if the original sale agreement was unregistered, the registration of subsequent instruments based on that agreement would not confer title. This principle prevents parties from circumventing mandatory registration requirements through creative documentation.

Statutory Vesting Supersedes Private Claims

Since the land had already vested in the State under land reform legislation in 1975, any private agreement executed thereafter, including the 1982 transaction, was legally ineffective. The Court emphasized that once land vests in the State through statutory provisions, private parties cannot claim superior rights through subsequent transactions.

Regulatory Framework and Compliance Requirements

Registration Process and Documentation

The registration process under the Registration Act requires several procedural steps to ensure legal validity [8]. Section 32 mandates that documents be presented at the proper registration office by the executing party or their authorized representative. Recent amendments have made it mandatory to affix passport-size photographs and fingerprints of executants at the time of registration for property transfer documents.

Section 23 of the Registration Act prescribes a four-month timeline for presenting documents for registration from the date of execution [9]. Failure to register within this prescribed period can result in the document being inadmissible as evidence of the transaction.

Consequences of Non-Registration

Section 49 of the Registration Act provides that unregistered documents required to be registered cannot be used as evidence of the transaction they purport to effect [10]. However, such documents may be admitted for collateral purposes, such as establishing the nature of possession or contractual obligations between parties.

The Supreme Court in Ravipudi Lakshminarayana v. Parvathareddy Sreedhar Anand reiterated that any immovable property valued above ₹100 must be compulsorily registered, and unregistered sale deeds cannot confer title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Documents Establishing Property Ownership

Primary Title Documents

While registration is essential, ownership must be established through a comprehensive chain of title documents. The Supreme Court in Mahnoor Fatima Imran emphasized that buyers must verify the entire chain of ownership, not merely rely on registered documents.

Sale Deed

The sale deed remains the primary document establishing transfer of ownership [11]. It must be properly executed, stamped, and registered to be legally effective. The document should clearly identify the parties, describe the property, specify the consideration, and be executed in accordance with legal requirements.

Title Deed

The title deed establishes the current owner’s rights and the manner of acquisition. It provides a comprehensive record of ownership and forms the foundation for all subsequent transactions.

Supporting Documentation

Encumbrance Certificate

An encumbrance certificate provides a record of all registered transactions affecting a property over a specified period [12]. It serves as evidence that the property is free from monetary and legal liabilities and is essential for establishing clear title.

Mutation Certificate

Mutation records the transfer of property in revenue records and is crucial for updating government databases. While not creating title, it provides evidence of recognized ownership for administrative purposes.

Property Tax Receipts

Regular payment of property taxes creates presumptive evidence of ownership and demonstrates continuous possession and acknowledgment of ownership by the taxpayer.

Due Diligence Requirements and Best Practices

Title Verification Process

The Mahnoor Fatima Imran judgment emphasizes the critical importance of comprehensive due diligence [13]. Legal practitioners must examine not only the immediate transaction documents but also the entire chain of title to ensure valid ownership transfer.

The verification process should include examination of the original title documents, verification of the transferor’s legal capacity, confirmation of proper registration procedures, and investigation of any statutory restrictions or government notifications affecting the property.

Investigation of Statutory Restrictions

Properties may be subject to various statutory restrictions, including land ceiling laws, urban development regulations, and environmental clearances. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of investigating whether property has been subject to land reform legislation or other government notifications that may affect private ownership rights.

Implications for Stakeholders

Impact on Property Buyers

The judgment reinforces the principle of “buyer beware” in property transactions [14]. Purchasers cannot rely solely on registered documents but must conduct comprehensive due diligence to verify the seller’s title. This includes examining the complete chain of ownership, investigating any statutory restrictions, and ensuring that all previous transactions were properly registered and legally valid.

Financial Institutions and Lending

Banks and financial institutions must exercise heightened caution when accepting property as collateral. The decision emphasizes that registered documents alone do not guarantee valid title, requiring more rigorous verification processes before approving secured loans.

Real Estate Industry Practices

The judgment necessitates enhanced due diligence practices within the real estate industry. Developers, brokers, and legal advisors must implement more comprehensive title verification procedures to protect their clients’ interests and avoid potential litigation.

Comparative Analysis with International Practices

Torrens System vs. Deeds Registration

While India follows a deeds registration system, many jurisdictions have adopted the Torrens system of title registration, which provides government-guaranteed titles. The Mahnoor Fatima Imran judgment highlights limitations of the current system, where registration provides notice but not guaranteed validity.

Proposed Reforms

Legal scholars have proposed moving toward a conclusive titling system where the government provides guaranteed titles and compensation for ownership disputes [15]. Such reforms would require comprehensive digitization of land records and establishment of clear title registration procedures.

Practical Recommendations for Legal Practitioners

Enhanced Due Diligence Protocols

Legal practitioners should implement comprehensive due diligence protocols that include verification of the complete chain of title, investigation of statutory restrictions, examination of revenue records and mutation documents, and confirmation of proper registration procedures for all previous transactions.

Documentation Best Practices

When drafting property transaction documents, practitioners should ensure clear identification of parties and their legal capacity, accurate description of the property with proper survey details, verification of consideration and payment terms, and compliance with all registration requirements and statutory procedures.

Risk Mitigation Strategies

To minimize risks associated with defective titles, practitioners should recommend comprehensive title insurance where available, establishment of escrow arrangements for complex transactions, and implementation of detailed contractual warranties and indemnities.

Future Implications and Developments

Digitization of Land Records

The Government of India’s initiatives toward digitization of land records may help address some issues highlighted in the Mahnoor Fatima Imran case. Digital records with comprehensive audit trails could provide better transparency and reduce opportunities for fraudulent documentation.

Legislative Reforms

The judgment may catalyze legislative reforms in property law, including amendments to the Registration Act to strengthen verification procedures and potential introduction of conclusive titling systems similar to those adopted in other jurisdictions [16].

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. serves as a crucial reminder that property registration and ownership are distinct legal concepts. While registration under the Registration Act, 1908, creates a public record and provides legal notice, it does not automatically confer valid title if the underlying transaction is legally defective.

The judgment reinforces fundamental principles of Indian property law: ownership must be established through a valid chain of title, unregistered agreements cannot be cured through subsequent registration if the original transaction was legally ineffective, and statutory restrictions such as land reform legislation supersede private claims. For legal practitioners, the decision emphasizes the critical importance of comprehensive due diligence in property registration and ownership, requiring examination of the complete chain of ownership and investigation of all potential legal impediments.

The implications extend beyond individual transactions to the broader real estate ecosystem, requiring enhanced verification procedures by financial institutions, more rigorous documentation practices by developers and brokers, and strengthened consumer protection measures. As India continues to modernize its property registration systems, the principles established in this judgment will remain fundamental to ensuring secure and transparent property transactions.

Legal practitioners must adapt their practices to reflect these heightened requirements, implementing comprehensive due diligence protocols and advising clients of the limitations inherent in relying solely on registered documents. The decision ultimately strengthens the legal framework governing property transactions by reinforcing the principle that valid ownership requires not merely proper registration, but a legally sound foundation for the transfer of title.

References

[1] Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2025) INSC 646. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186378251/ 

[2] Registration Act, 1908, Section 17 

[3] Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1565619/ 

[4] Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2338/1/A1882-04.pdf 

[5] Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 11 SCC 438. Available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-20660-no-more-shortcut-sales-supreme-court-s-suraj-lamps-judgment-on-power-of-attorney-property-transfers.html 

[6] Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/registered-sale-deed-alone-cannot-prove-ownership-rules-supreme-court/ 

[7] Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 INSC 646, para 18. Available at: https://thelegalchamber.in/no-valid-title-no-relief-supreme-court-rules-against-fraudulent-land-transfers-upholds-states-vesting-rights/ 

[8] Registration Act, 1908, Section 32. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/registration-of-documents-and-consequences-of-non-registration-under-section-17-of-the-registration-act-l908/ 

[9] Registration Act, 1908, Section 23. Available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l408-Sec-17-of-Indian-Registration-Act,-1908.html 

[10] Registration Act, 1908, Section 49. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-54-of-transfer-of-property-act/ 

[11] Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 and Registration Act, 1908. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/sale-under-transfer-of-property-act-1882/ 

[12] Encumbrance Certificate Guidelines. Available at: https://cleartax.in/s/title-deed-of-property

[13] Supreme Court Guidelines on Due Diligence. Available at: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/real-estate/supreme-court-property-title-registration-india/ 

[14] Property Due Diligence Requirements. Available at: https://prsindia.org/policy/analytical-reports/land-records-and-titles-india 

[15] Land Records and Titles Reform Proposals. Available at: https://www.godrejproperties.com/blog/property-title-understanding-property-titles-and-documentation-in-india 

[16] Property Law Reform Initiatives. Available at: https://www.legalbites.in/property-law/can-ownership-be-transferred-without-a-registered-sale-agreement-1151398 

PDF to Full Judgement

Authorized and Written by  Prapti Bhatt

The post Property Registration and Ownership: Legal Distinctions and Implications in Indian Law appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) introduced the Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) Regulations in 2014 to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for real estate investment vehicles in India’s capital markets. These regulations represented a watershed moment in the evolution of India’s real estate financing landscape, creating a mechanism for retail and institutional investors to participate in the commercial real estate market without direct property ownership. REITs were designed to function as yield-generating investment vehicles that own, operate, and finance income-producing real estate assets, delivering regular distributions to unit holders while offering liquidity through exchange listing. By democratizing access to commercial real estate, traditionally accessible only to large institutional investors and high-net-worth individuals, the REIT framework aimed to deepen India’s capital markets while providing developers with an alternative financing and monetization mechanism for their completed assets.

Historical Context and Evolution of Real Estate Investment Trusts Regulations

The introduction of REITs in India followed decades of successful implementation in developed markets. The United States pioneered the REIT structure in 1960, and subsequent adaptations appeared in Australia, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, among others. India’s journey toward REITs began in 2007 with initial conceptual discussions, followed by a draft regulatory framework in 2008. However, market conditions, including the global financial crisis and its aftermath, delayed implementation until 2014, when SEBI formally introduced the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations 2014, marking a significant milestone in the Indian real estate investment landscape.

The regulatory framework has undergone significant evolution since its inception:

1. The original SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations 2014 established the basic structure, governance requirements, and investment parameters.

2. The 2016 amendments introduced critical changes to enhance viability, including reducing the minimum public float requirement from 25% to 25% of outstanding units or Rs. 500 crore, whichever is lower, and permitting REITs to invest in two-level SPV structures.

3. The 2017 revisions expanded the definition of real estate assets to include hospitality and permitted investments in unlisted company equity shares.

4. The 2018 amendments reduced the minimum subscription amount from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 50,000 and allowed REITs to raise debt from foreign portfolio investors.

5. The 2019 changes expanded the definition of ‘strategic investors’ to include non-banking financial companies and reduced trading lot sizes to enhance liquidity.

6. The 2020 and 2021 amendments further streamlined requirements for rights issues, preferential allotments, and institutional placements while enhancing disclosure standards.
   

This evolutionary process reflects SEBI’s responsive approach to market feedback, progressively adapting the framework to balance market viability with investor protection.

Structure and Key Features of SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations

Legal Structure and Registration of REITs

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), governed by the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations 2014 and structured as trusts under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, are established for the purpose of owning, operating, and managing income-generating real estate assets, with a specific regulatory overlay from the SEBI framework. Regulation 3 establishes the registration requirement:

“No person shall act as a REIT unless it has obtained a certificate of registration from the Board in accordance with these regulations.”

The application process involves detailed scrutiny to ensure that only qualified entities receive registration. Key eligibility requirements under Regulation 4 include:

1. The REIT must be constituted as a trust with a trust deed registered under the Registration Act, 1908.
   
2. The sponsor(s) must have a net worth of at least Rs. 100 crore and minimum experience of 5 years in real estate development or real estate fund management.
   
3. The manager must have a net worth of at least Rs. 10 crore and minimum experience of 5 years in fund management, advisory, or property management in the real estate sector.
   
4. The trustee must be registered with SEBI and cannot be an associate of the sponsor or manager.
   

This structure creates a clear separation of roles between the trustee (legal owner holding assets for unit holders’ benefit), manager (responsible for investment decisions and operations), and sponsor (original promoter providing initial assets and maintaining skin in the game).

Investment Objectives and Conditions Under SEBI Regulation 18

Regulation 18 establishes core investment parameters:

“(1) The investment by a REIT shall only be in the following: (a) real estate, assets or properties in India whether directly or through a holdco and/or SPVs: Provided that such real estate, assets or properties shall not be mortgaged by the REIT except as follows: (i) for the purpose of raising debt on such real estate, assets or properties; or (ii) for the purpose of raising debt by the REIT against the security of investment in the holdco or SPV; or (iii) for the purpose of raising debt by the holdco or SPVs against the security of such real estate, assets or properties; or (iv) any combination of the above. (b) mortgage backed securities; (c) equity shares of companies which derive not less than eighty per cent. of their operating income from real estate activity as per the audited accounts of the previous financial year; (d) government securities; (e) unutilized FSI of a project where it has already made investment; (f) TDRs acquired for the purpose of utilization with respect to a project where it has already made investment; (g) money market instruments or cash equivalents.”

Regulation 18(4) further requires:

“Not less than eighty per cent of value of the REIT assets shall be invested in completed and rent generating properties.”

These provisions establish REITs as predominantly focused on income-generating commercial real estate, distinguishing them from development-focused real estate funds or direct property investment. The 80% investment requirement in revenue-generating assets creates a yield-oriented profile aligned with investor expectations for stable, predictable returns.

The regulations permit the remaining 20% of assets to be invested in under-construction properties, mortgage-backed securities, equity shares of real estate companies, government securities, and money market instruments. This flexibility allows REITs to maintain a pipeline of growth assets while preserving their predominantly yield-oriented character.

Distribution Policy for Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

Regulation 18(6) mandates a minimum distribution requirement:

“Not less than ninety per cent of net distributable cash flows of the SPV shall be distributed to the REIT in proportion of its holding in the SPV.”

Additionally, Regulation 18(7) requires:

“Not less than ninety percent of net distributable cash flows of the REIT shall be distributed to the unit holders.”

These distribution requirements establish REITs as high-yield instruments, ensuring that rental income and other cash flows generated by real estate assets flow through to investors rather than being retained. The distributions must be made at least semi-annually, creating predictable income streams for investors.

The mandatory distribution policy represents a critical distinguishing feature compared to corporate structures, where dividend distributions remain discretionary. This feature has made REITs particularly attractive to pension funds, insurance companies, and retail investors seeking predictable long-term yields with inflation protection characteristics.

Governance Regulations for Real Estate Investment Trusts

The regulations establish a robust governance framework with multiple layers of oversight:

1. Independent Trustee: Regulation 10 requires a SEBI-registered trustee independent from the sponsor and manager, with fiduciary responsibility to unit holders.

2. Professional Manager: Regulation 19 establishes detailed obligations for the manager, including:
   
   • Acting in the best interest of unit holders
   • Ensuring proper management of REIT assets
   • Appointing auditors and valuation experts
   • Ensuring compliance with all regulations
   • Managing conflicts of interest

3. Sponsor Commitment: Regulation 12 mandates minimum sponsor participation: “The sponsor(s) shall collectively hold not less than fifteen per cent of the total units of the REIT on a post-issue basis for a period of at least three years from the date of listing of such units: Provided that any holding of the sponsor in excess of fifteen per cent shall be held for a period of at least one year from the date of listing of such units.”
   

This sponsor commitment ensures alignment of interests between the original asset contributors and public unit holders.

1. Majority Independent Directors: The manager’s board must have at least 50% independent directors, ensuring independent oversight of management decisions.
   
   
2. Unit Holder Approval Requirements: Certain key decisions require unit holder approval, including:
   • Material related party transactions
   • Manager replacement
   • Significant asset acquisitions or disposals
   • Leverage increases beyond specified thresholds
   • Change in investment strategy

This multi-layered governance structure addresses potential conflicts of interest and agency problems inherent in the separation of ownership and management.

Key Judicial Rulings on REIT Regulations

Embassy Office Parks REIT v. SEBI (2019)

This case addressed related party transaction approvals in the context of India’s first listed REIT. Embassy Office Parks REIT had sought clarification regarding the approval requirements for certain transactions with sponsor group entities. The SAT judgment established:

“The related party transaction framework within the REIT regulations serves the critical purpose of ensuring that transactions between the REIT and its sponsor group occur on arm’s length terms, protecting the interests of public unit holders. The requirement for majority approval by unrelated unit holders for material related party transactions represents a substantive safeguard rather than a mere procedural requirement.

In assessing whether a transaction qualifies as a ‘material’ related party transaction requiring unit holder approval, both quantitative and qualitative factors must be considered. While the 5% of NAV threshold provides a quantitative guideline, transactions falling below this threshold may still require unit holder approval if they are qualitatively material due to their strategic importance, unusual terms, or potential to influence the REIT’s operations or governance.

Ongoing contractual arrangements with sponsor group entities must be evaluated not merely at inception but on a continuing basis, with material modifications requiring fresh unit holder approval. This ensures that related party relationships remain subject to appropriate scrutiny throughout the REIT’s lifecycle.”

This judgment clarified the substantive importance of related party transaction governance in the REIT framework, emphasizing both quantitative and qualitative materiality considerations.

Mindspace REIT v. SEBI (2020)

This case focused on valuation methodologies for REIT assets. Mindspace REIT had sought guidance regarding appropriate valuation approaches for different property types within its portfolio. The tribunal’s judgment noted:

“The valuation of real estate assets for REIT purposes serves the dual function of establishing fair values for transaction purposes and providing transparent information to unit holders about the REIT’s asset base. The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) methodology represents an appropriate base approach for income-generating commercial assets, but must be implemented with appropriate consideration of the specific characteristics of each property type and market segment.

For specialized asset classes such as co-working spaces, data centers, or hospitality properties, standard office or retail valuation metrics may require appropriate adjustments to reflect their distinctive operational characteristics and risk profiles. The valuation must consider not merely current contracted rents but also the sustainability of those rents, potential re-leasing risks, and market comparables.

The independence of the valuation process is fundamental to investor protection. While the REIT manager may provide factual information to the valuer, the judgment regarding appropriate methodologies, assumptions, and conclusions must remain with the independent valuation expert. Disclosures to unit holders must provide sufficient transparency regarding key assumptions to enable meaningful assessment of the valuation conclusions.”

This judgment established important standards for property valuation in the REIT context, emphasizing both methodological appropriateness and independence of the valuation process.

Brookfield India REIT v. SEBI (2021)

This case addressed asset qualification criteria, particularly regarding the categorization of properties as “completed and rent generating” within the meaning of Regulation 18(4). The tribunal held:

“The requirement that 80% of REIT assets be invested in ‘completed and rent generating properties’ serves the fundamental purpose of establishing REITs as primarily income-generating vehicles rather than development or speculative investments. The interpretation of this requirement must focus on substance rather than form, examining whether properties provide stable, predictable rental streams consistent with investor expectations.

A property may qualify as ‘completed and rent generating’ despite temporary vacancy or ongoing tenant transitions, provided it has received completion certification, is physically capable of generating rent, and has a demonstrated history or clear near-term potential for rental income. However, properties requiring substantial refurbishment or repositioning before they can attract tenants would not satisfy this requirement regardless of their legal completion status.

The assessment must consider both the current status of properties and their anticipated income profile over the near term. While temporary disruptions due to tenant turnover or market conditions do not disqualify properties, structural issues that prevent rental generation would place them outside the ‘completed and rent generating’ category.”

This judgment provided important clarity regarding the classification of properties within the REIT asset allocation framework, establishing a substance-over-form approach focused on income-generating capacity.

Market Development and Impact of REITs

The REIT framework has evolved from concept to market reality over the past decade:

Market Growth of SEBI-Registered Real Estate Investment Trusts

The market has experienced significant development:

1. The first REIT (Embassy Office Parks REIT) was listed in March 2019, raising approximately Rs. 4,750 crore.

2. By early 2023, six REITs were operational in India, with a combined market capitalization exceeding Rs. 75,000 crore.

3. Asset classes have diversified from the initial focus on Grade A office properties to include retail malls, hospitality assets, and industrial/warehousing properties.

4. The investor base has expanded from institutional dominance to include significant retail participation following reduction in minimum investment requirements.

5. Performance track records have been established, with generally positive total returns (dividend yields plus capital appreciation) despite challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic.
   

This growth demonstrates the market acceptance of the REIT structure as a viable real estate investment and monetization mechanism.

Developer Impact under SEBI REITs Framework

The REIT framework has created significant impact for real estate developers:

1. Capital Recycling: Leading developers like DLF, Embassy Group, K Raheja Corp, and Brookfield have utilized REITs to monetize completed assets, recycling capital into new development opportunities.

2. Balance Sheet Optimization: REITs have enabled developers to deleverage by transferring completed assets and their associated debt to REIT structures, improving financial metrics and creating capacity for new investments.

3. Access to Institutional Capital: The REIT framework has facilitated partnerships between developers and global institutional investors seeking exposure to Indian commercial real estate, including Blackstone, Brookfield, GIC, and CPPIB.

4. Professionalization: The governance and transparency requirements of the REIT framework have encouraged greater professionalization in asset management, leasing, and property operations.

5. Specialization: The emergence of REITs has accelerated the trend toward developer specialization, with some entities focusing on development while others emphasize asset management and recurring income.
   

These impacts have transformed the business models of many major commercial real estate developers in India.

Investor Perspective of SEBI REITs

The REIT asset class has attracted diverse investor categories:

1. Global institutional investors have participated both as strategic investors in REIT IPOs and as sponsors/co-sponsors of REIT vehicles.

2. Domestic institutional investors, particularly mutual funds and insurance companies, have allocated capital to REITs as part of their real estate exposure.

3. High-net-worth individuals have embraced REITs as a more liquid and diversified alternative to direct property ownership.

4. Retail investors have increasingly participated as minimum investment thresholds have been reduced from Rs. 2 lakh initially to as low as Rs. 10,000-15,000 in some REITs.
   

From the investor perspective, REITs have delivered:

1. Dividend yields typically ranging from 6-9% annually
2. Potential capital appreciation through asset value growth and expansion
3. Inflation protection through contractual rent escalations
4. Portfolio diversification through exposure to commercial real estate
5. Liquidity through exchange listing

These characteristics have established REITs as a distinctive asset class bridging traditional fixed income and direct real estate investments.

Challenges and Future Directions for Real Estate Investment Trusts Framework

Despite significant progress, the REIT framework continues to face challenges requiring regulatory adaptation:

Taxation Framework

The tax treatment of REITs has evolved significantly, with key milestones including:

1. The establishment of a pass-through taxation status, eliminating the potential for double taxation at both the REIT and unit holder levels.

2. The abolition of Dividend Distribution Tax, which simplified distributions and enhanced yields.

3. Tax exemptions for transfers of real estate assets from sponsors to REITs, facilitating the initial setup and subsequent asset contributions.
   

However, remaining challenges include:

1. Complexities in withholding tax mechanics for different unit holder categories
2. Stamp duty implications for asset transfers to REITs
3. GST treatment of various REIT-related services
4. International taxation considerations for cross-border investors

Recent regulatory consultations have explored further tax simplification to enhance market development.

Asset Class Expansion

The initial REIT market has focused predominantly on Grade A office properties, with limited diversification into other commercial real estate sectors. Regulatory and market challenges for expanding into other asset classes include:

1. Retail Properties: Higher operational intensity, variable income components, and COVID-19 disruptions have slowed retail REIT development.

2. Hospitality: The variable income characteristics of hotels create challenges for the stable yield profile expected from REITs.

3. Residential Rental: The fragmented nature and lower yields of residential rental markets have limited REIT applicability in this sector.

4. Industrial/Logistics: While growing rapidly, this sector has faced challenges in reaching sufficient scale and stabilized occupancy for REIT structures.
   

Regulatory adaptations under consideration include specialized provisions for different property types, recognizing their distinct operational characteristics and risk profiles.

Liquidity Enhancement

While REIT structures have successfully attracted investment, secondary market liquidity remains a concern:

1. Trading volumes in listed REITs, while improving, remain modest compared to corporate securities of similar market capitalization.

2. Institutional dominance in unit holding patterns contributes to limited free float and trading activity.

3. Retail awareness and understanding of the asset class remains limited despite reduced minimum investment thresholds.
   

Regulatory initiatives to address these challenges include:

1. Further reduction in minimum trading lot sizes to enhance accessibility
2. Inclusion of REITs in indices to drive passive investment flows
3. Market-making mechanisms to enhance liquidity
4. Investor education initiatives to broaden the investor base

These initiatives aim to develop a more robust secondary market, enhancing price discovery and exit options for investors.

Global Benchmarking

As the Indian REIT market matures, ongoing benchmarking against global best practices continues:

1. The Singapore REIT model, with its longer operating history and diverse property sectors, provides comparative insights on governance and sector diversification.

2. The Australian REIT framework offers lessons on retail investor participation and yield enhancement strategies.

3. The US REIT sector, with its multiple specialized subsectors (office, retail, industrial, data center, healthcare, etc.), demonstrates potential evolutionary paths for sector specialization.

This global benchmarking informs the continuing evolution of India’s REIT regulations, adapting international best practices to domestic market conditions.

Future Growth Potential of SEBI Real Estate Investment Trusts

The Indian REIT market stands at an early stage of development compared to global counterparts, suggesting substantial growth potential:

1. Scale: The current REIT market represents only a small fraction of India’s institutional-grade commercial real estate, estimated at over 700 million square feet for office space alone.

2. Sector Expansion: Emerging sectors like data centers, logistics parks, specialized healthcare real estate, and education-related properties offer potential new REIT categories.

3. Geographic Diversification: Current REITs focus predominantly on major metros, with significant potential for expansion into tier 2 cities as their commercial real estate markets mature.

4. Retail Participation: Growing financial literacy and reduced investment thresholds may substantially increase retail investor participation, broadening the investor base.
   

Product Innovation: Specialized REIT structures focused on particular sectors or investment strategies may emerge as the market matures.
Regulatory frameworks will need to evolve to accommodate this potential growth while maintaining investor protections and market stability.

Conclusion 

The SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014, have established a transformative framework for real estate investment in India, creating a vehicle that bridges public capital markets and commercial real estate. From initial concept to market reality, REITs have demonstrated their potential to provide developers with monetization options while offering investors access to institutional-quality real estate with liquidity and transparency advantages over direct property ownership.

The regulatory framework’s evolution reflects SEBI’s responsive approach to market feedback, balancing the need for investor protection with practical market requirements. Through successive amendments, the regulations have been refined to enhance viability, expand the investor base, and address operational challenges while maintaining core governance and transparency requirements.

As India’s commercial real estate market continues to mature and institutionalize, REITs will likely play an increasingly important role in ownership structures and capital formation. The success of this market will depend on continuing regulatory refinements, particularly regarding taxation, asset class expansion, and secondary market development. The framework’s ability to balance the interests of sponsors, managers, and diverse unit holders will remain central to its long-term effectiveness.

The SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations 2014 represent a significant achievement in India’s financial market development, creating a specialized vehicle tailored to the distinctive characteristics of real estate assets and investor requirements. This regulatory innovation provides both developers and investors with new options for real estate participation, potentially accelerating the institutional transformation of India’s real estate markets while deepening its capital markets.

References

1. Agarwal, S., & Jain, R. (2021). Real Estate Investment Trusts in India: Regulatory Framework and Market Evolution. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 39(4), 378-394.

2. Brookfield India REIT v. SEBI, Appeal No. 127 of 2021, Securities Appellate Tribunal (September 8, 2021).

3. CBRE Research. (2022). India Real Estate Investment Trusts: Market Review and Outlook. CBRE South Asia Pvt. Ltd.

4. Chandrasekhar, V., & Sharma, A. (2019). REITs as an Alternative Asset Class: Performance Analysis in the Indian Context. Indian Journal of Finance, 13(6), 22-38.

5. Credit Suisse. (2022). Indian REITs: Institutionalization of Commercial Real Estate. Asia-Pacific Real Estate Research Report.

6. Embassy Office Parks REIT v. SEBI, Appeal No. 172 of 2019, Securities Appellate Tribunal (June 28, 2019).

7. Gupta, A., & Tiwari, P. (2020). Performance Characteristics of REITs: A Comparative Analysis of Global Markets. Journal of Property Research, 37(3), 197-215.

8. JLL India. (2022). India’s REIT Market: The Journey So Far and Road Ahead. Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc.

9. KPMG India. (2021). REITs and InvITs: Empowering India’s Infrastructure and Real Estate Growth Story. KPMG India Research Report.

10. Mindspace REIT v. SEBI, Appeal No. 243 of 2020, Securities Appellate Tribunal (December 11, 2020).

11. Ministry of Finance. (2020). Report of the Task Force on National Infrastructure Pipeline. Government of India, New Delhi.

12. Panda, R., & Patel, A. (2022). Indian REITs: Evaluating Risk and Return Characteristics. National Stock Exchange Working Paper Series.

13. Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2014). SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014. Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4.

14. Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2021). Consultation Paper on Review of the Regulatory Framework for Real Estate Investment Trusts. SEBI/HO/DDHS/DDHS/CIR/P/2021/117.

15. Sharma, V., & Sharma, N. (2019). Evolution of the Indian Real Estate Market: The REIT Perspective. International Journal of Real Estate Studies, 13(1), 54-72.

The post SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations 2014: Transforming Real Estate Investment appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

This comprehensive analysis of the case Vijaykumat Nagardas Jogani v. Official Liquidator of Vitta Mazda Ltd & 7 other(s) provides a detailed understanding of the legal issues, arguments, and judgments involved in a property dispute case. The case underscores the importance of due diligence in property transactions, especially when the property is sold on an “as is where is basis.” It also highlights the role of the court in interpreting and applying the law in complex property dispute case. 

Background of the case

The case revolves around a property dispute involving multiple plot holders who are registered sale deed holders of the subject land. Their names have been mutated in the revenue record, indicating their ownership. The controversy arose when the Official Liquidator conducted a sale of the property on an “as is where is basis,” which means the property was sold with all its existing conditions, including any potential encumbrances such as pending litigation.

The sale process was initiated with an advertisement published by the Official Liquidator in newspapers on 06.08.2015, calling for bids. During the tender process, the successful bidder was given a chance to inspect the property on 16th and 17th September 2014. The successful bidder, after satisfying himself, purchased the property on “as is where is basis.”

The plot holders had approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal, and the Supreme Court was aware of the disputed title of the land. The Supreme Court, while allowing the bidders to participate in the auction, clarified that the applicants should file necessary applications before the High Court. The Supreme Court’s order finalizing the sale on 03.03.2016 was passed with the knowledge of the disputed title.

This case has a historical background with two batches of applicants. The first batch of applicants had their applications dismissed by this Court via an order dated 27.09.2006. Against this order, the plot holders preferred O.J. Appeal No. 53 of 2012 and allied matters, which were dismissed via an order dated 08.04.2013. The plot holders then approached the Supreme Court, which issued a notice and granted an order of Status-Quo.

Prayer of the Applicant

The applicants in this case have filed for the validation of the sale deeds executed in their favor before the date of the passing of the winding-up order by the court. The applications are centered around a common issue, which is the ratification of the sale deeds executed by the erstwhile management of M/s. Vitta Mazda Ltd., a company in liquidation.

Legal Issues Involved

The primary legal issue in this case revolves around the concept of “as is where is basis” in property sales. This term implies that the property is sold with all its existing conditions, including any potential encumbrances such as pending litigation. The successful bidder, after inspecting the property, purchased it on “as is where is basis.”

The plot holders, who are registered sale deed holders of the subject land and whose names have been mutated in the revenue record, argue that the Official Liquidator misrepresented the facts about the ownership of the land. They contend that the plots were never free from encumbrances, and the sale was conducted on “as is where is basis.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while finalizing the sale, was aware of the disputed title and thus, the order of sale of the property on the basis of “as is where is basis” was passed. The interpretation of this order forms a significant part of the legal issue in this case.

Arguments Made by Advocate for the Applicant

The Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. Digant Popat, along with Mr. Dilip Kanojia, Mr. Ravindra Shah, and Mr. Rutvij Bhatt, put forth several key arguments:

1. The applicants argued that the Official Liquidator misrepresented the facts before the Supreme Court about the plots being freehold plots. In reality, these plots were owned by the applicants, who were the registered sale deed holders.
2. The applicants contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while passing the order dated 03.03.2016, was aware of the disputed title. Therefore, the order of sale of property on the basis of “as is where is basis” was passed with this knowledge.
3. The term “encumbrances,” as per the Black’s Law Dictionary Eleventh edition, means any claim or liability. This claim would include any assertion of right, including the right of title and ownership. Thus, when a land is purchased in auction on “as is where is basis,” it is purchased with all encumbrances with it.
4. The Advocate argued that the successful bidder purchased the properties on “as is where is basis” and with encumbrances. Therefore, any dispute regarding any encumbrances on land would have to be appropriately decided before an appropriate forum.
5. The Advocate submitted that the auction sale conducted pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was specifically on the condition of “as is where is basis.” Therefore, only this Court as a Company Court can look into the condition of “as is where is basis” so that the sale in favor of the applicants can be validated under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Opposition Submission by the Opposite Side

The opposition, represented by Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Mr. Vivek Singh, Mr. Amar Dave, and Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, made several submissions:

1. They argued that the plots were never free from encumbrances as the plot holders are registered sale deed holders of the subject land. Their names have been mutated in the revenue record, indicating their ownership.
2. It was submitted that the Official Liquidator had misrepresented the facts about the ownership of the land and the sale was conducted on an “as is where is basis.”
3. The opposition contended that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.03.2016 finalizing the sale, has to be interpreted in light of the facts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was aware of the disputed title. Thus, the order of sale of the property on the basis of “as is where is basis” was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. The opposition further submitted that the successful bidder, after inspecting the property, purchased it on “as is where is basis” and with encumbrances. Therefore, any dispute regarding any encumbrances on land would have to be appropriately decided before an appropriate forum.

Important Observations of the Court

The court made several important observations during the proceedings:

1. The court noted that the plots were sold on an “as is where is basis.” The successful bidder was given a chance to inspect the property on 16th and 17th September 2014. After satisfying himself, the bidder purchased the property on “as is where is basis” with all the encumbrances, which includes all the pending litigation as well. (Page 21, Para 21)

 “It was submitted that the tender terms and conditions also mentioned that the property will be sold on “as is where is basis”. During the tender process, the successful bidder was given chance to inspect the property on 16th and 17th September, 2014. Thus, the successful bidder, after satisfying himself has purchased the property on “as is where is basis” with all the encumbrances which will include all the pending litigation as well.”

2. The court observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while confirming the sale of the property in Special Leave Petition Nos. 34782-34783 of 2012, was aware of the IA filed by the plot holders and about the disputed title of the land. (Page 21, Para 22)

“It was further submitted that while confirming the sale of the property in Special Leave Petition Nos. 34782-34783 of 2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was aware of IA filed by the plot holders and about the disputed title of the land.”

3. The court acknowledged that the plots were never free from encumbrances as the plot holders are registered sale deed holders of the subject land. Their names have been mutated in the revenue record, indicating their ownership. The Official Liquidator had misrepresented the facts about the ownership of the land, and the sale was conducted on an “as is where is basis.” (Page 22, Para 23)

“It was submitted that the plots were never free from encumbrances as the plot holders are registered sale deed holders of the subject land. Further, pursuant to their registered sale deeds, their names have been mutated in the revenue record. It was therefore submitted that the Official Liquidator had misrepresented the facts about the ownership of the land and the sale was conducted on “as is where is basis”.”

4. The court recognized that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.03.2016 finalizing the sale has to be interpreted in light of the facts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was aware of the disputed title. Thus, the order of sale of the property on the basis of “as is where is basis” was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (Page 22, Para 23)

“It was submitted that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.03.2016 finalizing the sale, has to be interpreted in light of the facts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was aware of the disputed title and thus, the order of sale of property on the basis of “as is where is basis” was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

5. The court pointed out that the successful bidder had the duty to satisfy himself of the title or encumbrances on the land. The names of the applicants were reflected in the revenue records as well at the relevant point of time. (Page 25, Para 27)

“It was submitted that the intending purchasers were part of the bidding process before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and were also represented by advocates thus, the parties had knowledge of the IA filed by the plot holders raising disputes about the title. Thus, it could not be said that the property was ever free from encumbrances and that the successful bidder was not aware of it.”

[pdf-embedder url=”https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GJHC240445992014-2_230420_132535.pdf”]

Important Judgments relied upon

1. The court referred to the case of M/s. Meghal Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti and others, where it was held that the auction purchaser is deemed to have notice of the title of the seller. 
2. The court also referred to the case of Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) through LRs. vs. Vithal , where it was held that the purchaser of a property in a court auction is bound by the rule caveat emptor, which means “let the buyer beware.” The purchaser must satisfy himself about the title of the property and any encumbrances on it. 
3. The court referred to the case of Jagdish Singh vs. Natthu Singh , where it was held that the auction purchaser must satisfy himself about the existence.
4. The court referred to the case of Chittoor Distt. Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. v. Vegetols Ltd, where it was held that payments made by a company after the presentation of a petition for winding up could be validated if evidence was adduced to show that there was compulsion of circumstances. 
5. The court also referred to the case of Tulsidas Jasraj Parekh v. Industrial Bank of Western India, where it was held that the sale of a property on an “as is where is basis” implies that the property is sold with all its existing conditions, including any potential encumbrances such as pending litigation. 

Conclusion

The court concluded that the sale of the plots was conducted on an “as is where is basis,” and the successful bidder was aware of the encumbrances, including the disputed title of the land. The bidder had the duty to satisfy himself of the title or encumbrances on the land, and the names of the applicants were reflected in the revenue records at the relevant point of time.

The court also noted that the intending purchasers were part of the bidding process before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and were also represented by advocates. Thus, the parties had knowledge of the IA filed by the plot holders raising disputes about the title. Therefore, it could not be said that the property was ever free from encumbrances and that the successful bidder was not aware of it.

Author: Parthvi Patel, United World School of Law 

The post Analysis of the Legal Implications of Property Disputes Surrounding a Sales based on ‘As Is Where Is’ Basis appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Executive Summary

The Supreme Court of India in Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi [1] delivered a landmark judgment that fundamentally clarifies the legal position regarding property ownership rights arising from Wills and General Power of Attorney. This judgment establishes definitively that neither Wills nor General Power of Attorney can confer title or ownership rights in immovable property, thereby reinforcing the mandatory statutory requirements under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The decision has far-reaching implications for property transactions across India and serves as a crucial precedent for preventing malpractices in real estate dealings.

Introduction to the Legal Framework

The transfer of immovable property in India is governed by a comprehensive statutory framework primarily consisting of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Registration Act, 1908. These statutes establish mandatory procedures for valid property transfers, ensuring legal certainty and preventing fraudulent transactions. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi reinforces these statutory provisions and clarifies several misconceptions that have persisted in property law practice.

Background and Factual Matrix of the Case

Dispute Overview

The case arose from a property dispute involving H-768, J.J. Colony, Shakarpur, Delhi. Mr. Ghanshyam, the original property owner and appellant, entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 10 April 2002 with Mr. Yogendra Rathi, the respondent, for the sale of the suit property. The respondent provided the complete sale consideration as agreed and simultaneously received several documents from the appellant, including a will bequeathing the property to him and a General Power of Attorney.

Despite receiving these documents and the full consideration, no registered sale deed was executed in favor of the respondent. The respondent took possession of the property, and the appellant was permitted to occupy a portion as a licensee for three months. When this license period expired, the appellant refused to vacate, leading to litigation.

Procedural History

The respondent filed a suit seeking eviction of the appellant and recovery of mesne profits, claiming ownership based on the Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, possession memorandum, payment receipt, and the will dated 10 April 2002. The appellant contested these claims, alleging that the documents were manipulated on blank papers, though no evidence was provided to substantiate this allegation.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondent after examining three specific issues: the alleged manipulation of documents, the respondent’s right to evict the appellant, and entitlement to mesne profits. The court found no evidence of manipulation and granted a decree for eviction with mesne profits. This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court and subsequently by the High Court, leading to the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Legal Principles

Statutory Framework Analysis

The Supreme Court emphasized the primacy of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides the comprehensive legal framework for property sales. Section 54 states: “Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument” [2].

This statutory provision establishes two critical requirements for valid property transfers: first, the execution of a proper document of transfer, and second, mandatory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, for properties valued at Rs. 100 and above.

Legal Position on Wills

The Court clarified the fundamental principle that a Will becomes effective only upon the death of the testator and confers no rights during the testator’s lifetime. The judgment explicitly states that since a will has no legal force during the life of the executant, the appellant’s will did not confer any right upon the respondent while the appellant was alive [3]. This principle reinforces the testamentary nature of wills and prevents their misuse as instruments for inter vivos property transfers.

Position on General Power of Attorney

Regarding General Power of Attorney, the Court observed that GPA does not inherently confer title to immovable property. The judgment criticizes the prevalent practice of recognizing GPA as a title document, stating that such recognition violates statutory law requirements [4]. The Court emphasized that unless a document is executed pursuant to the power of attorney that complies with Section 54 requirements, the GPA remains ineffective for property transfer purposes.

Doctrine of Part Performance Protection

Despite ruling against the validity of will and GPA as title documents, the Court applied the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 53A provides: “Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof… the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property” [5].

The Court found that the respondent, having performed his part of the contract by paying the full consideration and taking possession, acquired possessory title protected under Section 53A. This protection prevents the transferor from disturbing the transferee’s possession, even though no registered sale deed was executed.

Regulatory Framework and Compliance Requirements

Registration Act, 1908 Requirements

Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates compulsory registration for specific categories of documents. The provision states that non-testamentary instruments creating, declaring, assigning, limiting, or extinguishing any right, title, or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards must be registered [6]. This requirement ensures public notice of property transactions and prevents fraudulent claims.

The 2001 amendment to the Registration Act further strengthened these provisions by requiring registration of documents containing contracts for property transfer under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This amendment addresses the specific scenario encountered in Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi and similar cases [7].

Anti-Fraud Mechanisms

The regulatory framework incorporates several anti-fraud mechanisms. The registration process requires personal appearance of parties before the registering officer, verification of identity, and attestation by witnesses. These procedural safeguards help prevent the execution of fraudulent documents and provide reliable evidence of genuine transactions.

Modern amendments have further strengthened these protections by requiring photographs and fingerprints of executants during registration, along with computerization of registration records to maintain comprehensive and tamper-proof documentation [8].

Case Law Development and Judicial Precedents

Earlier Supreme Court Decisions

The Ghanshyam judgment builds upon earlier Supreme Court precedents that deprecated improper property transfer practices. In Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, the Court had already criticized the practice of transferring immovable property through agreements to sell, power of attorney, and wills instead of registered conveyance deeds [9].

The Delhi High Court decisions in Imtiaz Ali v. Nasim Ahmed and G. Ram v. Delhi Development Authority had also established that agreement to sell and power of attorney are not documents of transfer and do not effectuate the transfer of right, title, and interest in immovable property [10].

Contemporary Application

Recent Supreme Court decisions continue to apply these principles rigorously. The Court consistently holds that the protection afforded under Section 53A is available only when specific prerequisites are met: a written contract for transfer, part performance by the transferee, and willingness to perform contractual obligations [11].

Impact on Property Transactions and Legal Practice

Clarity in Legal Requirements

The Ghanshyam judgment provides much-needed clarity regarding valid property transfer mechanisms. Legal practitioners and property buyers now have definitive guidance that ownership of immovable property can be transferred only through properly executed and registered documents, thereby excluding instruments like wills and general power of attorney, which do not independently convey title. This clarity reduces litigation arising from disputed property transactions and brings greater certainty to commercial dealings.

Prevention of Malpractices

The decision directly addresses common malpractices in property transactions where parties attempt to circumvent registration requirements and stamp duty obligations through informal arrangements. By categorically rejecting the validity of wills and GPAs as title documents, the Court eliminates legal loopholes that were previously exploited for tax avoidance and fraudulent transactions.

Protection of Bona Fide Purchasers

While strictly enforcing statutory requirements, the judgment also protects genuine purchasers through the application of Section 53A. This balanced approach ensures that parties who have acted in good faith and fulfilled their contractual obligations are not prejudiced by technical non-compliance with registration requirements.

Practical Implications for Legal Practitioners

Due Diligence Requirements

Legal practitioners must now conduct enhanced due diligence when advising clients on property transactions. This includes verifying that all transfer documents comply with Section 54 requirements and ensuring proper registration under the Registration Act. Practitioners should also advise clients against relying on informal arrangements or unregistered documents particularly Wills and General Power of Attorney which do not confer valid ownership rights.

Documentation Standards

The judgment establishes higher documentation standards for property transactions. All agreements for property transfer should be drafted with clear terms that satisfy Section 53A requirements, including specific provisions for consideration, possession transfer, and performance obligations. This approach provides legal protection even when formal sale deeds are delayed.

Risk Management

Law firms and real estate professionals must implement robust risk management protocols to identify potential issues with property titles. This includes comprehensive title searches, verification of all previous transactions, and ensuring that all documents in the chain of title comply with statutory requirements.

Contemporary Challenges and Solutions

Digital Property Records

The judgment’s emphasis on proper documentation aligns with ongoing digitization initiatives in property records management. Electronic registration systems and digital property cards provide enhanced security and accessibility, reducing the scope for fraudulent documentation while improving transparency in property transactions.

Regulatory Harmonization

The decision supports ongoing efforts to harmonize property laws across different states and union territories. By reinforcing central legislation requirements, the judgment promotes uniform application of property transfer principles throughout India, reducing jurisdictional variations that previously created legal uncertainty.

Financial Sector Implications

Banks and financial institutions extending secured loans against immovable property can rely on this judgment to strengthen their due diligence processes. The clear delineation of valid title documents helps lending institutions make informed decisions and reduces non-performing asset risks arising from defective security interests.

Future Legal Developments

Legislative Reforms

The Ghanshyam judgment may influence future legislative reforms in property law. Potential areas for reform include simplification of registration procedures, standardization of documentation requirements, and enhanced penalties for fraudulent property transactions.

Technology Integration

Emerging technologies such as blockchain and artificial intelligence may be integrated into property registration systems to provide immutable records and automated compliance checking. These technological solutions would further strengthen the legal framework established by this judgment.

Cross-Border Transactions

The principles established in this case will likely influence regulations governing cross-border property investments and Non-Resident Indian property acquisitions, ensuring consistent application of ownership verification standards across different categories of investors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi represents a watershed moment in Indian property law, providing definitive clarity on the validity of property transfer instruments. By categorically establishing that wills and General Power of Attorney cannot confer ownership rights in immovable property, the Court has eliminated long-standing ambiguities and prevented potential misuse of these instruments.

The judgment successfully balances strict statutory compliance with equitable protection for genuine purchasers through the application of Section 53A. This balanced approach ensures legal certainty while preventing injustice to parties who have performed their contractual obligations in good faith.

By underscoring the need for mandatory registration, the court strengthens the legislative objectives of the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act—enhancing transparency and reducing misuse. For legal practitioners, real estate professionals, and investors, the judgment serves as a reminder to ensure full compliance with statutory requirements, especially when dealing with property transfers executed through Wills and General Power of Attorney, which often fall into legal grey areas when not properly registered or executed.

This landmark judgment will undoubtedly serve as a foundational precedent for future property law developments, contributing to a more robust and transparent real estate legal framework in India. The principles established in this case will continue to guide courts, practitioners, and policymakers in addressing contemporary challenges in property law while maintaining the integrity of India’s property transfer system.

References

[1] Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, Civil Appeal Nos. 7527-7528 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, decided on 2 June 2023. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65582027/

[2] Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Available at: https://www.aaptaxlaw.com/transfer-of-property-act/section-54

[3] Supreme Court of India, “Can power of attorney, will, agreement to sell be recognised as title documents?” SCC Blog, 8 June 2023. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/06/08/recognition-of-poa-will-agreement-to-sell-as-title-documents-conferring-rights-in-immovable-property-sc/

[4] Law Insider India, “Landmark Judgement: Ghanshyam V. Yogendra Rathi (2023),” 16 July 2023. Available at: https://lawinsider.in/judgment/landmark-judgement-ghanshyam-v-yogendra-rathi-2023

[5] Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/doctrine-of-part-performance/

[6] Section 17, Registration Act, 1908. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161047129/

[7] Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/registration-of-documents-and-consequences-of-non-registration-under-section-17-of-the-registration-act-l908/

[8] The Registration Act, 1908, amendments regarding modernization. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1489134/

[9] Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2009). Referenced in Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi judgment.

[10] Imtiaz Ali v. Nasim Ahmed, AIR 1987 Delhi 36; G. Ram v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 2003 Delhi 120.

[11] Supreme Court clarification on Section 53A conditions, LiveLaw, 24 December 2024. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/conditions-to-invoke-s-53a-transfer-of-property-act-supreme-court-explains-279281

[12] Drishti Judiciary, “Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi 2023, SC.” Available at: https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/transfer-of-property-act/ghanshyam-v-yogendra-rathi-2023-sc

The post Wills and General Power of Attorney in Property Ownership: Analysis of Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.