SynopsisThe Delhi High Court has ruled that only a registered sale deed, not an agreement to sell, GPA, or receipt, can establish property title. The court dismissed a partition suit filed by the children of one brother, who relied on these documents, upholding the sale deed in the other brother's name.Listen to this article in summarized format ListenET OnlineTwo brothers bought 1 Bigha 2 Biswas land in Shahdara in 1981 but sale deed was executed in only one brother’s name, other brother only had agreement to sale; Children of other brother claimed 50% share in this land; Delhi HC rejects their claim (AI generated representative image)On January 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court ruled that an unregistered agreement to sell, a general power of attorney and a receipt can’t establish property title, which can only be granted by a sale deed. Thus, the high court dismissed a family’s land partition lawsuit because another family member held a sale deed in their name.Income Tax GuideIncome Tax Union Budget FY 2026-27 LiveIncome Tax Slabs FY 2025-26Income Tax Calculator 2025This ruling came in the context of a case brought by the children of two brothers (Mr Dinesh Kumar Bhatia and Amrish Kumar Bhatia) who had jointly bought 1 Bigha, 2 Biswas land in Shahdara, Delhi, back in 1981. Mr Amrish Kumar Bhatia passed away on December 12, 2010 while Mr Dinesh Kumar Bhatia had died earlier on September 19, 1985.The brothers were the sons of the late Sh. Kundan Lal Bhatia. During his lifetime, on April 7, 1981, Mr Dinesh Kumar Bhatia acquired this land based on an Agreement to Sell (ATS), along with a Receipt and General Power of Attorney (GPA).After their deaths, the children (legal heirs) of Mr Dinesh Kumar Bhatia claimed a 50% share in the land on the basis of the aforementioned documents (ATS, receipt, GPA). They argued that this land is jointly and constructively possessed by them and Mr Amrish’s children.However, Mr Amrish’s children contested this claim. In October 2021, Amrish’s children (legal heirs) reportedly threatened Dinesh’s children (legal heirs) to sell their share of the property (land) and create third-party rights in the property, aiming to undermine Dinesh’s children’s legitimate claim.So, on October 27, 2021, Dinesh’s legal heirs sent a notice to Amrish’s legal heirs claiming joint ownership of the suit property and seeking its partition. Amrish’s family responded to this legal notice on November 21, 2021, asserting that the property was never jointly owned and that there was a registered sale deed favouring their predecessor, Mr. Amrish Kumar Bhatia.Hence a case was filed in Delhi High Court and on January 29, 2026, Amrish’s legal heirs won the case. They were represented by advocates Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Mr. Vikram Arora, Mr. Pawas Agarwal, Ms. Mansi Negi and Mr. Amish Tiwari.Amrish’s legal heirs pointed out that the registered sale deed dated January 2, 1982 is in their father’s name and was known to everyone. This sale deed was officially registered with the relevant sub registrar-iv, in Delhi on January 20, 1982. However, Dinesh Kumar Bhatia never contested this sale deed until his death in 1985, nor did it get challenged during Amrish’s lifetime until 2010. Therefore, Amrish’s legal heirs argued that the current case is barred by limitation since it was filed after 40 years.In court, Dinesh’s children claimed that during their father’s lifetime, Amrish’s legal heirs never revealed the sale deed dated January 2, 1981, leading them to believe that both Dinesh Kumar Bhatia (their father) and Amrish Kumar Bhatia (the defendant's father) were the joint owners and co-sharers of the property.The Delhi High Court pointed out that there are no registered title documents in the name of the late Dinesh Kumar Bhatia, who is the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The only documents that the plaintiffs have relied upon to claim their share (50%) in the property are the agreement to sale, General Power of Attorney and the Receipt, all dated April 7, 1981.Also read: Tenant paid Rs 6.5 lakh to buy landlady’s property; SC admits sale agreement as evidence and says possession doesn’t finalise sale without a sale deedTherefore, the Delhi High Court stated based on the precedents set by the Supreme Court’s judgments, it is evident that these documents do not establish any right, title or interest in the property. Family treeSource: ET OnlineAlso read: Noida property row: HC rules sale agreement does not give ownership after mother signs deal without son's consentSummary of the judgementThe Delhi High Court rejected the civil suit seeking partition, declaration of title, and cancellation of a sale deed by holding that the case is manifestly vexatious and does not disclose a cause of action. Dinesh’s legal heirs have tried to create a cause of action by clever drafting. The court said the continuation of the present suit would result in a waste of judicial time of the court.The Delhi High Court had observed that from D