2 September 2025 Legal Updates

AGREEMENT TO SELL, GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WON'T CONFER TITLE IN PROPERTY: SUPREME COURT REITERATES

(a) Case Title:

• Ramesh Chand (D) THR. LRS. v. Suresh Chand and ANR.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 1, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts

This case involved a property dispute between two brothers over their deceased father's property. The plaintiff (Suresh Chand) claimed ownership of property No. 563, Ambedkar Basti, Delhi, based on various documents allegedly executed by their father Kundan Lal in his favor. The defendant (Ramesh Chand) argued he had been in continuous possession since 1973 through an oral transfer.

Key Documents in Dispute

The plaintiff relied on five documents dated May 16, 1996:

• Agreement to Sell
• General Power of Attorney
• Affidavit
• Receipt of consideration
• Registered Will

Legal Issues Examined

• Whether the disputed documents conferred valid title over the property?
• Whether the plaintiff could claim benefit under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act (part performance)?
• What relief the parties were entitled to?

Supreme Court's Holdings

1. On Agreement to sell

• An agreement to sell does not transfer ownership - only a registered sale deed can do so under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Agreement to sell merely creates a right to seek specific performance, not proprietary rights

2. On General Power of Attorney (GPA)

• A GPA is merely an agency document that authorizes someone to act on behalf of the grantor. It does not transfer title even if it contains clauses making it irrevocable. The GPA in question only authorized property management, not conveyance.

3. On the Will

• A will must be properly proved under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act. At least one attesting witness must be examined to prove execution. The will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances - why would the father bequeath entire property to one son excluding three other children? Mere registration doesn't validate an unproven will

4. On Section 53A (Part Performance)

• Requires the transferee to be in actual possession of the property. Since the plaintiff filed suit for possession, he clearly wasn't in possession. Cannot claim benefit under Section 53A without possession.

Final Judgment

• Appeal allowed - Supreme Court set aside High Court judgment. Plaintiff's suit dismissed - none of the documents created valid title. Property belongs to Class-I legal heirs of deceased Kundan Lal through succession.
• Rights of second defendant (who purchased 50% share) protected to extent of appellant's share only.

CUSTOMS ACT | ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WITHOUT S.138C(4) CERTIFICATE IF ASSESSEE'S S.108 STATEMENT ADMITS CONTENTS: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh Kumar and Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 20, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Facts of the Case

• The respondents (Suresh Kumar & Co.) were importers of branded food items from various countries. They were accused of under-declaring the actual Retail Sale Price (RSP)/Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of imported goods to evade customs duties. During raids and searches, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized electronic devices (laptops, hard disks) containing evidence.
• A show cause notice was issued demanding differential duties of approximately ₹9.24 crores and ₹9.83 lakhs from the two respondents respectively

Legal Issues

• The primary legal question was whether electronic documents (computer printouts) obtained from seized devices could be admitted as evidence without proper certification under Section 138C (4) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Lower Court Decision

• The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the respondents' appeals, holding that:
• The electronic documents couldn't be admitted as evidence due to non-compliance with Section 138C (4). This section requires a certificate from a responsible person regarding the operation of the computer/device. Without such certification, the evidence was inadmissible

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

• The Court examined Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act (similar to Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act) regarding admissibility of electronic evidence.

Court's Reasoning

• Mandatory but Flexible Compliance: While Section 138C(4) is mandatory, strict literal compliance may not always be required
• Applied Legal Maxims:
  - "impotentia excusat legem" (impossibility excuses law)
  - "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" (law doesn't compel impossible acts)
• Substantial Compliance: The Court found that the Record of Proceedings and statements under Section 108 of Customs Act constituted substantial compliance

Evidence Considered

Detailed Records of Proceedings showing the process of extracting printouts from electronic devices. Statements of company directors under Section 108 acknowledging the authenticity of documents. Signatures of the parties on all printed documents as tokens of authenticity. No retraction of statements or dispute of contents in reply to show cause notice.

Final Order

• Partly allowed the Revenue's appeals and set aside the Tribunal's order

Key Legal Takeaways

• Electronic Evidence Law: Understanding requirements for admitting computer-generated evidence
• Substantial vs. Literal Compliance: Courts may accept substantial compliance with procedural requirements when strict compliance is impractical
• Evidence Act Principles: Section 65B of Evidence Act and its customs law equivalent
• Procedural Safeguards: Importance of proper documentation and acknowledgment in evidence collection
• Remand Orders: Courts can send cases back for fresh consideration on remaining issues