Delhi District Court
Sunny Saini S/O S R Saini vs Manjeet Singh And Ors on 5 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE -04,
(PRESIDED OVER BY: ANIL CHANDHEL)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR NO. DLWT01-002597-2019
RCA No. 44/2019
Mr. Sunny Saini
R/o Late S.R. Saini
R/o 262, Prem Nagar,
Ambala City, Haryana. .....Appellant.
Versus
1. Mr. Manjeet Singh
S/o Mr. Mohan Singh
R/o A-51, 'M' Block,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Vijay Sachdeva
R/o M-22, Hari Nagar,
Clock Tower, New Delhi .....Respondent
REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL UNDER
SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
18.02.2019, PASSED BY LD. CIVIL
JUDGE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI IN CS SCJ NO. 11113/2016.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.04.2019
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 05.07.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 05.08.2025
________________________________________________________________
Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 1 of 26
RCA DJ No. 44/2019
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : None.
JUDGMENT
1. This regular first Appeal, under Section 96 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2019, passed by Ld. Civil Judge-04, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ No.11113/2016. In terms of the impugned judgment /decree, the Court of Ld. Civil Judge has dismissed the civil suit, filed by the Appellant for the prayers of recovery of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction. The present appeal was filed against two Respondents, however in terms of the Order dated 01.08.2019, the Respondent No.1 was deleted and the appeal was adjudicated only against the Respondent No.2.
2. Proceedings before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge:
It will be appropriate to recapitulate the proceedings before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge and the same are being summed up in brief in the paras stated hereinbelow:
2.1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the civil suit for the prayers of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction.
________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 2 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 The averments made in the plaint are briefly stated in the sub paras hereinbelow:
i. The Plaintiff's late father purchased the suit property, i.e., plot No.12, M Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, admeasuring 150 sq. yards, from Mr. Rajender Nath Negi on 18.09.1997, in terms of registered General Power of Attorney, registered Special Power of Attorney, Will and agreement to sell. The Plaintiff's father died on 30.11.2012 and he had executed a registered Will dated 05.09.2012 registered with the Sub-Registrar Ambala, before his death, whereby the suit property was bequeathed in favour of the Plaintiff.
ii. The Plaintiff's late father had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property on 23.07.2001 against the Defendant No.1 and others, who were later deleted from the array of parties on different dates.
iii. The Defendant No.1, in his written statement in the aforesaid suit, disputed the identification of the suit property and further claimed himself to be a special attorney of Sh. Sadhu Singh for the plot No.22.
________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 3 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 iv. The Court of Ld. Civil Judge had also passed an injunction Order dated 19.12.2023 in the aforesaid suit, whereby the Defendants were restrained from interfering with possession of the Plaintiff's father and further restrained from selling the suit property. Subsequently, the Plaintiff's father constructed a boundary wall and gate in the suit property and placed his lock upon the same. The Plaintiff's father, being resident of Ambala, was unable to frequently visit the suit property and therefore, he appointed Mr. Tej Pal Singh as his Attorney to look after the suit property.
v. On 07.09.2011, Mr. Tej Pal Singh found that the
Defendant No.1 was carrying out the
construction over the suit property, breaking open the lock and gate. The Defendant No.1 was also shown the stay Order, but he did not stop and the attorney of the Plaintiff's father reported the matter to police by a written complaint dated dated 07.09.2011. Subsequently the Plaintiff's father filed a contempt petition on 16.09.2011 in the aforesaid suit.
vi. After completion of pleadings, the Issues were framed in the aforesaid suit. It emerged from the cross-examination of the Defendant No.1 that he ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 4 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 had illegally sold the suit property to the Defendant No.2 in the year 2008, who later on constructed building upto fourth floor, however the particulars of the Sale Deed were not known.
vii. During the pendency of the suit, the Defendant No.1 in connivance with the Defendant No.2 and other associates raised unauthorized and illegal constructions over the suit property. This fact came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff when the Defendant No.1 examined DW2 Hardeep Kumar, record Keeper Building Department, MCD, West Zone, Delhi. During his examination, he admitted that a house was constructed on the plot M-22, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, the plan of the said house has been sanctioned vide Ex.DW2/A and the said property was in the name of Defendant No.2.
viii. During pendency of the aforesaid Suit No. 244/06, the father of the Plaintiff expired on 30.11.2012, thereafter, the Plaintiff being son and beneficiary of the suit property by virtue of Will had filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC for impleading him as Plaintiff in the aforesaid suit. However during the course of hearing, on instruction the Counsel for the Plaintiff, the Suit No. 244/06 was withdrawn ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 5 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 vide Order dated 01.05.2014 with liberty to file a fresh suit for seeking appropriate remedy before the competent Court.
ix. The Defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest in the suit property, which he had illegally alienated and transferred to the Defendant No.2 who later on constructed a four storey house on the same.
Accordingly, in terms of the averments stated hereinabove, the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the civil suit for the prayers of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction with regard to suit property.
2.2. The suit was filed against two Defendants, i.e., Mr. Manjeet Singh as Defendant No.1 and Mr. Vijay Sachdeva as Defendant No.2. The Defendant No.1 was duly served with summons and entered appearance on 09.03.2016 and filed his written statement. The Appellant had withdrawn the suit against the Defendant No.1 on 18.01.2017, as the Defendant No.1 made a statement that he did not have any right, title, interest or possession of the suit property. The suit was adjudicated only against the Defendant No.2, namely Mr. Vijay Sachdeva, i.e., the Respondent herein.
2.3. The Appellant has mentioned the address of the Respondent as M-22, Hari Nagar and no summons were served upon him ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 6 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 at the address of the suit property. The Respondent could not be served with the ordinary process and was served by way of publication of summons in the newspaper. After publication the summons in the newspaper, the Respondent did not enter appearance and was proceeded against ex-parte on 25.05.2017 and the matter was posted for Appellant/Plaintiff's evidence.
2.4. The Appellant/Plaintiff led his evidence and examined two witnesses in support of his case. The Appellant appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the averments of the Plaint in his examination-in-chief. The PW-1 relied upon and exhibited the following documents in his examination-in-chief:
i. Exhibit PW-1/1(OSR): Will dated 05.09.2012. ii. Exhibit PW-1/2(Colly): Certified copy of the statement of counsel and the order dated 01.05.2014. iii. Exhibit PW-1/3: Certified copy of the plaint. iv. Exhibit PW-1/4: Certified copy of the written statement filed by the Defendant No.1.
v. Exhibit PW-1/5: Certified copy of site plan.
The PW-1 was not cross-examined on behalf of the Appellant and was accordingly discharged upon conclusion of his examination in chief. The matter was posted for the final arguments after conclusion of Respondent's evidence.
2.5. The Appellant examined the official witness from the Record ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 7 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 Room Civil, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as PW-2 for production of records of Civil Suit No.410/2013. The PW-2 produced the record of the aforesaid case, in the following manner:-
i. Exhibit PW-2/1(Colly)(OSR): Certified copies of the statements and affidavit of Plaintiff and Defendant.
ii. Exhibit PW-2/2(OSR): Certified copy of GPA dated 18.09.1997.
iii. Exhibit PW-2/3(OSR): SPA dated 18.09.1997 iv. Exhibit PW-2/4(OSR): Affidavit dated 18.09.1997. v. Exhibit PW-2/5(OSR): Will dated 18.09.1997. vi. Exhibit PW-2/6(OSR): Agreement to sell dated 18.09.1997.
The PW-2 was not cross-examined and was discharged after conclusion of his examination-in-chief. The matter was posted for the final arguments after conclusion of Appellant's evidence.
2.6 Thereafter the Court of Ld. Civil Judge heard the final arguments and dismissed the suit of the Appellant.
3. Submissions:
3.1 Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Respondent did neither rebut the averments of the plaint nor cross-examined the Appellant's witnesses. It is submitted ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 8 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 that the Respondent did not offer any evidence in affirmative against the contentions of the Appellant. It is submitted that the Respondent had right in the suit property in terms of Ex.PW-2/2 to Ex.PW-2/6 and had better right and interest against the Respondent, who has not come forward to explain the nature of his rights. It is submitted that the Appellant's father was in possession of the suit property and was legally dispossessed. It is submitted that the Appellant has examined the original seller as a witness in the previous suit, who affirmed the transaction with the Appellant's father.
It is submitted that the Court of Ld. Civil Judge has wrongly relied upon Suraj Lamp's case as the Appellant has only to show a comparatively better right than the Respondent, which he has succeeded to establish, in view of unrebutted and uncontested case of the Defendant.
4. Points for Determination, Conclusions and Reasons for such Conclusions:
4.1. The Appellant has filed the civil suit against the Respondent for recovery of possession and consequential prayers. The Appellant has claimed the ownership on the basis of a registered Will stated to be executed by his late father. It is stated in the plaint that the Appellant's father purchased the suit property and was in possession of the same. It is stated that the Appellant's father was dispossessed illegally by Mr. Manjeet Singh during the pendency of a previous suit, who also transferred the suit property to the Respondent and the Respondent had raised illegal construction on the same. Mr. ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 9 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 Manjeet Singh was deleted from the arrays of the parties on 18.01.2017 and the Respondent did not appear to contest the suit. The Court of Ld. Civil Judge has held that the Plaintiff has claimed ownership on the basis of GPA set and agreement to sell and in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (11.10.2011): 2011 INSC 739", the aforesaid documents did not confer title upon the Appellant and therefore the suit for possession was not maintainable.
4.2. In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, observations of the Court of Ld. Civil Judge and after consideration of the material on record, the core issue for adjudication of the present appeal can be culled out in terms of following point of determination:
i. Whether the Appellant is owner of the suit property or had such right in the same so as to entitle him to a decree for possession?
The above-mentioned point of determination is being discussed in paras hereinbelow.
4.3. The Plaintiff has claimed himself to be an owner of the suit property, in terms of a registered Will dated 05.09.2012, stated to be executed by his late father in his favour. The Plaintiff has exhibited the aforesaid Will in his examination ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 10 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 in chief as PW-1/1. The Will dated 05.09.2012 is an unprivileged Will and an unprivileged Will is required to be attested by two witnesses and has to be executed in the manner stated in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It is prescribed in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.
Even in case of a registered Will, the requirement of examination of the attesting Witness is not dispensed with. The Plaintiff has neither examined any attesting Witness of the aforementioned Will nor stated the reason for such non- examination. The death or incapability of the attesting witness to appear and depose has also not either been pleaded or established on record. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to prove the Will dated 05.09.2012. However, the failure to prove the Will may not be the sole ground to disentitle the Plaintiff, as even in absence of any Will, the Plaintiff is also one of the legal heirs of his late father and if he proves the ownership of his father, he may still maintain the suit against the third parties, in capacity of a co-owner.
4.4. It is case of the Plaintiff that his father had purchased the suit property from one Mr. Rajender Nath Negi, in terms of the following documents:
________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 11 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 i. Exhibit PW-2/2: Registered GPA dated 18.09.1997;
ii. Exhibit PW-2/3: Registered SPA dated
18.09.1997;
iii. Exhibit PW-2/4: Affidavit dated 18.09.1997.
iv. Exhibit PW-2/5: Will dated 18.09.1997
v. Exhibit PW-2/6: Agreement to sell dated
18.09.1997.
The Plaintiff has not relied upon the aforesaid documents in his examination in chief. The aforesaid documents were sought to be proved in evidence in the previous suit, which was withdrawn by the Plaintiff and certified copies of the same were produced in the present suit by the Official Court witness PW-2. The aforesaid previous suit was filed by the Plaintiff's father against Manjeet Singh & Ors., however the sole Respondent/Defendant to the present Appeal or suit was not a party to the aforesaid suit. Therefore, the evidence recorded in the previous suit can-not be relied upon against the Respondent, as it is, by merely filing of certified copies.
4.5. The Appellant/Plaintiff did not affirm or rely upon the Exhibit PW-2/2 to Exhibit PW-2/6 in his examination in chief. The original of the aforesaid documents were not produced in the present suit. No witness was examined by the Plaintiff's father even in the previous suit from the office of Sub-Registrar to prove the factum of registration of the Exhibit PW-2/2 and Exhibit PW-2/3, i.e., the GPA and the ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 12 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 SPA dated 18.09.1997. The Appellant had not even sought to produce the original of the aforesaid documents in the suit under appeal, in order to establish the factum of registration.
In absence of proof of registration of Exhibit PW-2/2 and Exhibit PW-2/3, the aforesaid power of attorneys can-not be said to be an instrument, whereby an interest can be created in the immovable properties, in terms of law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, "M. S. Ananthamurthy vs. J. Manjula: 2025 INSC 273." Thus, the aforesaid power of attorneys cannot be treated as power of attorneys for consideration. Moreover, the terms of the aforesaid documents indicate against the idea of attorney for consideration.
4.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in, "Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (11.10.2011) :
2011 INSC 739", that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance and the transactions of the nature of 'GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The aforesaid proposition has been carried forward by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (01.11.2023): 2023 INSC 1016", and the facts of the aforementioned case are also relevant to discussion at hand. In the aforesaid case, the Plaintiff has filed a suit for possession on the basis of unregistered documents. The ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 13 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 Hon'ble High Court has decreed the suit on the ground that the Defendant has failed to prove his defence, the Plaintiff had a better title and further the Plaintiff could be construed as attorney of previous owner. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain:2018:DHC:5311", are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. Trial court has disbelieved the case of the appellant/defendant that the suit property was gifted to the appellant/defendant by his brother Laiq Ahmed. I completely agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the trial court because trial court has referred to the fact that the stand of the suit property being gifted to the appellant/defendant was taken up for the first time only in the written statement and no such case was taken up by the appellant/defendant when he gave a Reply dated 24.4.2008 (Ex. PW1/O) to the Legal Notice dated 16.4.2008 (Ex. PW1/N) sent by the respondent/plaintiff. I also agree with the trial court that the issue of Gift Deed could not be believed because in the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant there were no names which were given as to who were the relatives and the other persons present when the alleged oral gift had taken place by Laiq Ahmed to his brother/appellant/defendant. Even in his affidavit by way of evidence filed by the appellant/defendant there was complete silence as regards the persons/their names who were present at the time of the alleged oral gift of the suit property made by Laiq Ahmed to his brother/appellant/defendant. I therefore agree with the conclusion of the trial court that appellant/defendant has failed to prove that the suit property was gifted to him by his brother.
7. Though not argued on behalf of the appellant/defendant one other issue which requires consideration is as to whether respondent/plaintiff can rely upon the ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 14 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 unregistered documents dated 20.2.2008 being the Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW1/F), General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/G), Affidavit (Ex. PW1/H), Will (Ex. PW1/I), Receipt (PW1/J) in view of the Act 48 of 2001 becoming effective from 24.1.2001 and by which Act, documents such as agreement to sell cannot be looked into for conveying the title of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 of the property unless the same are duly stamped and registered. Trial court in this regard has held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.: 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) being only prospective in nature and therefore will not affect the validity of the subject documents executed in 2008, however in my opinion this reasoning is questionable, but the subject suit for possession still had to be decreed because respondent/plaintiff can definitely be said to be suing as an attorney for and on behalf of the owner Laiq Ahmed, and Laiq Ahmed is not in any manner objecting to the respondent/plaintiff taking possession of the suit property. Respondent/plaintiff therefore clearly is held to have an entitlement to take possession of the suit property, not only on behalf of the Laiq Ahmed but also because he had a better title to possession of the suit property than the appellant/defendant. This additional reasoning I am giving under Order XLI Rule 24 CPC. Trial court therefore, in my opinion, was justified in decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits."
However in the appeal against the judgment of Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disagreed with the afore-mentioned reasoning, as highlighted above. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"9. It was also submitted that there was a prohibition of registration of documents of transfer/conveyance with ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 15 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 respect to the area where the property in question is situate and, therefore, the transfers affected under the customary documents was sufficient to confer title on the Respondent. It was also submitted that the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. MANU/SC/1222/2011 : 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC), which was of the year 2011, had prospective application and would not have any bearing on the title of the Respondents which came to him under the customary documents executed in the year 2008 much prior to the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra).
10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the Respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this Court:
(i) Ameer Minhaj v. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 16 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 Issar and Ors. : 2018:INSC:578.
(ii) Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi : 2022:INSC:10111.
(iii) M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v.
Amit Chand Mitra: 2023:INSC:8542.
12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the Respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne profits against the Appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee.
13. The argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-registration emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the same view.
14. In case the Respondent wanted to evict the Appellant treating him to be a licensee, he could have maintained a suit on behalf of the true owner or the landlord under specific instructions of Power of Attorney as landlord claiming to have been receiving rent from the Appellant or as Attorney of the true owner to institute the suit on his behalf for eviction and possession. That being not the contents of the plaint, we are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the High Court in the impugned order.
15. For all the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the suit deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the suit is dismissed."
(highlighting and underlining added) ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 17 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 The judgment in the Shakeel Ahmed (supra) has further been followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "O.P. Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.(22.05.2024): 2024:DHC:4309-DB" to hold that customary documents in terms GPA etc. do not confer any title on a party and cannot be made basis to maintain any claim against a third party. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"13. The customary documents on which the Petitioner herein relies upon to claim ownership over the flat no. 301 are colloquially referred to as the Power-of- Attorney sales. However, the Supreme Court has after taking note of this practice for Power-of Attorney sales categorically held that such transactions are not a legal mode of transfer of title in an immovable property. The Supreme Court after examining the mandatory provisions of the Registration Act, TP Act and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 held that these documents do not create any right, title or interest in favour of the intending purchaser. The law on this issue was recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain MANU/SC/1257/2023 :
2023:INSC:1016, wherein the Court after referring to its earlier judgment held that the person relying upon the customary documents cannot claim to be the owner of the immovable property and consequently not maintain any claims against a third-party."
The aforesaid view of Shakeel Ahmed (supra) has further been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Dheeraj Jain and Ors. Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors. (02.02.2024): 2024:DHC:744", to stress upon the fact that the law with regard to section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 remained consistent all along and no cut-off date or a ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 18 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 prospective date could have been read into such a provision. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"75. ................................................It is manifest from the above, that any document of sale in respect of a property which is worth more than Rs. 100 is, mandatorily registrable. This issue has been reiterated and confirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent judgement in R. Hemalatha vs. Kashthuri, reported as MANU/SC/0344/2023 : 2023:INSC:336 : (2023) 10 SCC 725. 22-08-2024 (Page 20 of 25) www.manupatra.com Preeti Gupta The Supreme Court has also considered Suraj Lamps & Industries (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, reported as MANU/SC/1021/2009 : (2009) 7 SCC 363 in Shakeel Ahmed vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain reported as MANU/SC/1257/2023, and clearly held that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without the registered documents in respect thereto. It also clearly held that traditional documents like agreement to Sell, Will, Power of attorney etc., used by the parties for conveying interest in a property, in the absence of proper registered Sale Deed would be non-est in law and would not convey any title whatsoever, except to be used for specific performance. The Supreme Court held that the law in regard to section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 remained consistent all along and no cut-off date or a prospective date could have been read into such a provision. It is undisputed in the present case that the Compromise Deed/ Relinquishment Deed is not registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908."
4.7. The Appellant has claimed his father to be an owner of the suit property in terms GPA, SPA, Agreement, Will and Affidavit. In terms of law discussed hereinabove, the Plaintiff's father cannot be held to be an owner of the suit property in terms of GPA, SPA, Agreement to sell and ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 19 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 Affidavit. The death of the previous owner has not been proved and therefore, the Will in favour of the Plaintiff's father did not create any further right in favour of the Plaintiff/his father.
4.8. The title/ownership of the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff's father has not been established on record. There is nothing on record to infer that Mr. Rajender Nath Negi, who executed the Exhibit PW-2/2 to Exhibit PW-2/6 was, in-fact, previous owner of the suit property. Mr. Rajender Nath Negi was not examined as a witness in the suit under appeal, however he was examined by the Plaintiff's father, as one of his witnesses in the previous suit. The testimony of Mr. Rajender Nath Negi, in the previous suit, is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"Suit No.749/02PW2: Sh. Rajender Nath Negi, S/o Late Sh. Depty Lal Negi, R/o 21, Vasant Vihar, Ambala City (Rented House).
On S/A I have sold the suit property to the plaintiff i.e. Lt. Col. S. R. Saini by way of GPA already Ex.PW1/2, SPA which is already Ex.PW1/3, Affidavit already mark A, will already Ex.PW1/4, Agreement to sell already Ex.PW1/5. The abovesaid documents were executed by me on 18.09.1997. The abovesaid property was purchased by my father to Sh. Virender Gopal, S/o Sh. Ram Gopal. I was duly authorized by my father to dispose off the suit property by way of GPA.
________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 20 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 XXX by Sh. S. A. Sahal, counsel for the defendant.
I do not remember the number of the suit property but I can tell the same after seeing the record. I do not know whether registered sale deed could be registered or not. My father had purchased the property with GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, ETC. I do not know whether the property was not having no. 22 in M block, Hari Hagar."
Thus, in terms of the above-mentioned deposition, the witness has stated that his father was the owner of the suit property and purchased the same from one Virender Gopal S/o Ram Gopal. Neither the documents relating to purchase from Mr. Virender Gopal have been produced on record, nor the details of the same are divulged by the witness. Further, the witness claims to be authorized by his father to sell the suit property by way of a GPA, which is neither available on record nor the details of the same are evident. Therefore, there is no evidence about the fact that predecessor-in- interest of the Plaintiff's father was owner of the suit property. There is complete mystery about the nature of the rights of the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff's father as the title chain of the suit property has not been produced.
4.9. The Plaintiff has also not effectively established the identity of the suit property or the factum of prior possession of the same. It is stated in the plaint that the Appellant's father had acquired the possession of the suit property, in terms of the Exhibit PW-2/2 to Exhibit PW-2/6, in 1997 and thereafter constructed a boundary wall and placed his lock on the ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 21 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 premises. It is further stated that Mr. Manjeet Singh illegally dispossessed the Appellant's father, during the pendency of the previous suit, and it transpired that Mr. Manjeet Singh had transferred the suit property to the Respondent and the Respondent had constructed a building till 4th floor on the suit property.
4.10. The possession of the Appellant or his late father has not been clearly made out on record. Besides oral averments, there is no effective evidence about the same. The date of dispossession by Mr. Manjeet Singh has not been spelled out. It is stated that attorney of the Plaintiff late father, namely Mr. Tej Pal Singh, had found Mr. Manjeet Singh to have illegally obtained possession of the suit property during the pendency of the previous suit. The aforesaid attorney has not been examined as a witness. Further, the Appellant/Plaintiff has claimed that Mr. Manjeet Singh transferred the possession of the suit property, i.e., M-12, to the Respondent, however the address of the Respondent, mentioned in the memo of parties is M-22 and the summons on the aforesaid address have not been served upon him. The Respondent was stated to be in possession of a four storey building in the suit property, i.e., M-12, and was never sought to be served on the address of the suit property.
4.11. The Appellant has filed the suit with regard to the plot No.M-12, Hari Nagar and the previous suit of his father was also related to Plot No.M-12, Hari Nagar. Mr. Manjeet Singh ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 22 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 was the Defendant No.1 in the previous suit and he stated that he was not in possession of the plot No.M-12 and was in possession of plot No.M-22, by virtue of being the attorney of his uncle late Sadhu Singh, who was the owner of the plot No.M-22. It was further stated by him that late Sadhu Singh purchased the plot No.M-22, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi from erstwhile owner Mr. Ram Gopal by way of a sale deed dated 05.12.1952, duly registered as the document No.5315, in Book No.1, in Volume No.2733, pages 21 to 23. It is stated by Mr. Manjeet Singh in his examination in chief that the aforesaid property, i.e., the Plot No.M-22, was sold by him to Mr. Vijay Sachdeva in the year 2008, vide a registered sale deed and thereafter Mr. Vijay Sachdeva constructed a building upto 4th floor on the aforesaid property. Mr. Manjeet Singh, i.e., the Defendant No.1 in the previous suit, had also examined the witness from the House & Building Department as DW-2, who had stated that the Building Sanction Plan of Plot No. M-22, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower was in the name of Mr. Vijay Sachdeva, i.e., the Respondent herein. Therefore, in terms of material on record, Manjeet Singh as well as Vijay Sachdeva (Respondent herein) had claimed rights only in Plot No.M-22 and not in the plot No.M-12.
4.12. Once it is shown in the evidence in the previous suit that the Respondent as well as Manjeet Singh are only asserting rights in M-22 and not in M-12, it has to be explained by the Appellant/Plaintiff as to in which capacity the suit is being ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 23 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 pursued against the Respondent, with regard to plot No.M-
12. It is also not the case of the Appellant/Plaintiff that plot No.M-12 is being shown by the Respondent or his predecessor-in-interest as M-22. Mr. Manjeet Singh was deleted from the array of the parties upon his statement that he did not have any right, interest or title in M-12. The Appellant did not challenge his statement and accepted his deletion. The plaint has also not been amended subsequent to his deletion so as to incorporate the cause of action pertaining to the Respondent more specifically.
4.13. No evidence has been produced in the suit to establish the clear identity of the suit property. The Appellant has not even filed the site plan in the present suit. The Appellant has only filed certified copies of the site plan and testimonies of the witness in the previous suit. The Appellant's father has examined the official witness from the office of MCD, Town Planning Department as PW-4 in the previous suit and his testimony is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"Date: 31.5.07 Suit No.: 244/06 Statement of PW4 Sh. Yogesh Kumar s/o sh. Ganpat Ram, Draftsman, MCD Office, Town Planning Deptt. Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
On S. A.:
I have brought the lay out plan for colony Hari Nagar Clock Tower, in which Block A, B, BE, C, D, M, MS etc. are comprising in this plan. Which is Ex.PW4/1. In the said plan, the plot No.M-12 has been ________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 24 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019 shown at point X. (original seen and returned). It is correct that other property No.11 to 14 are adjoining to above said property. Vol. Infact there are many other properties whom municipal No.M-12 has been given. I cannot say from the record brought by me who is the person, in whose name the above said property is being assessed for the purpose of house tax.
XXX Nil.
Opp given."
The Plaintiff has not filed the Exhibit PW-4/1 in the present suit. It is evident from the testimony of the PW-4, as mentioned hereinabove that plot No.M-12 has been given to more than one plot. The Appellant was duty bound to remove the confusion, in order to clearly establish the identity of the suit property. Further, there is no official record as to who was paying the house tax of the suit property. Thus, except the documents in the name of the Plaintiff's father, there is no official record of ownership of the plot No.M-12. Therefore, the suit property has not been clearly identified and established on record for the prayer of possession.
4.14. Thus, in view of the above-mentioned discussion, the point of determination is answered in negative and against the Appellant. The impugned judgment/decree does not suffer from any infirmity and the Appellant has failed to establish any ground for interference with the same.
________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 25 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019
5. Final Decision/Conclusion:
Accordingly, in terms of the discussion/reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2019, passed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge-04, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.11113/2016, is hereby affirmed. The Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. The TCR is directed to be sent back. A copy of this judgment/order be sent to the Court of Ld. Civil Judge-04, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for information. The Appeal files be consigned to the record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by ANIL
ANIL CHANDHEL
CHANDHEL Date:
2025.08.05
16:49:43 +0530
Announced in the open Court (ANIL CHANDHEL)
today on 5th of August, 2025 DISTRICT JUDGE-04
WEST DISTRICT
THC/DELHI/05.08.2025
________________________________________________________________ Sunny Saini Vs. Manjeet Singh & Anr. Page No. 26 of 26 RCA DJ No. 44/2019