Delhi District Court
Vandana vs Bhupender Kumar And Anr on 27 October, 2025
INDEX
Sl. No. Heading Page No.
1. Memo of parties 2
2. Plaintiff's case (In brief) 3-4
3. Defendant's case (In brief) 4-5
4. Replication 5
5. Issues 5-6
6. Plaintiff's Evidence 6-7
7. Defendants' Evidence 7-8
8. Arguments by Ld. Counsel for the parties 8-9
9. Issue no. 1 9-11
10. Issue no. 2 11-13
11. Issue no. 3 13-15
Judgments relied upon
(i) 'Rajasthan High Court Advocates Union vs Union of India
2001 (2) SCC 294: AIR 2001 SC 416'
12. Issue no. 4 15-16
13. Issues no. 5,6 and 7 16-39
Judgments relied upon
(i) 'Chander Dutt Sharma vs Prem Chand, 2018 SCC OnLine
Del 9903'
(ii) 'Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Haryana and
Anr, 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1360' (para 16 to 24)
(iii)'Karamvir vs Mann Singh, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3021'
(iv)M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. vs J. Manjula & Ors, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 448''
(v) Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad (2018) 7 SCC
646,
(vi) 'Channegowda vs N.S. Vishwanath 2023 SCC OnLine Kar
153'
(vii) Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1526',
(vii) 'Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand and
Anr, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1879'
(viii) Sections 53 and 54 of the Indian Easements Act,
1882
14. Relief- Suit dismissed 39
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.1 of 39
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE- 02
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided Over By- Sandeep Kumar Sharma. DHJS
CS DJ No. 131/2020
CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020
In the matter of:-
VANDANA
W/O SH. VINOD KANOJIA
R/O H. NO. 3490/2, BLOCK-B,
GROUND FLOOR, GALI NO. 92,
SANT NAGAR, BURARI, DELHI-110084.
.......... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. SH. BHUPENDER KUMAR
S/o Late Sh. Nar Singh
2. SANGEETA
W/o Sh. Bhupender Kumar
Both R/o H. No. 3490/2, Block-B,
First Floor, Gali No. 92,
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi-110084.
.......... Defendants
Date of institution of suit : 04.02.2020
Date of decision : 27.10.2025
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.2 of 39
JUDGMENT
1. This Court is rendering the present judgment to adjudicate the present suit filed by Ms Vandana (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the plaintiff') against Sh. Bhupender Kumar (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'defendant no. 1') and Ms Sunita (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'defendant no. 2') and collectively (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the defendants') for the recovery of possession of the property bearing no. H. No. 3490/2, Block-B, Gali no. 92, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi-110084, measuring an area of 50 sq. yds (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'suit property') and also for permanent injunction, damages and mesne profits.
Facts Pleaded in Plaint (in brief)
2. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from Mr R. K. Sehgal through GPA, agreement to sell, deed of Will, agreement, receipt and possession letter, all dated 22.10.2013. Since the defendant no. 1 is the real brother of the plaintiff and had no place to live, therefore, on his request, the plaintiff allowed him and his family to stay there from January 2014 against the payment of ₹.1,500/- per month towards electricity and water charges, and no rent was charged for staying in the property.
3. It has further been averred that the defendants have not paid any utility charges from January 2018. It has also been averred that in order to usurp the suit, the defendant no. 2, in CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.3 of 39 connivance with the defendant no. 1, filed a false domestic violence case against the plaintiff and her other family members, which is pending trial in Tis Hazari Court.
4. It has also been averred that on 30.12.2028, defendant no. 1 created a disturbance, which forced the plaintiff to call the police and file a written complaint at Burari Police Station wherein, defendants undertook to vacate the property. Though, when the suit property was not vacated by the defendants as assured, then the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 14.06.2019 to defendant no. 1 asking them to vacate the property and terminated the defendant's license to occupy the property. However, even after the service of the notice, the defendants neither vacated the suit property nor replied to the same.
Facts pleaded in Written Statement by defendant no. 1 (in brief)
5. The defendant no. 1 has refuted all the claims of the plaintiff and sought the dismissal of the suit on the ground of mis-joinder of the defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 1 claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit property since he purchased the same in 2010 in his own name.
6. It is alleged that the plaintiff has forged, fabricated and manipulated the sale purchase documents, and the plaintiff, in collusion with her mother, has filed the present suit with malafide intention to grab defendant no. 1's property. It has CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.4 of 39 also been contended that the plaintiff and her family are residing in the property only as licensees, not as owners. The defendant no. 1 denied that the plaintiff has any right or interest in the suit property. Defendant no. 1 also denied receiving any legal notice allegedly issued by the plaintiff.
Facts pleaded in Written Statement by defendant no. 2 (in brief)
7. The defendant no. 2 has also refuted all the claims of the plaintiff and contended in sync with the pleadings of defendant no. 1. It has asserted that the suit is liable to be dismissed due to misjoinder of parties, as defendant no. 2 is not a necessary party in the present suit. The defendant no. 2 also sought the dismissal of the suit on the ground of non- payment of the appropriate court fee. It has also been alleged that the plaintiff and her mother forced defendant no. 2 to sell her jewellery for money and also coerced the mother of defendant no. 2 into giving ₹.2,00,000/- for the purchase of a suit property.
Facts pleaded in the Replication
8. The plaintiff refuted all the allegations made by the defendants in their respective written statements and reiterated the facts as pleaded in the plaint.
Issues
9. This Court vide order dated 28.11.2022, framed the following issues:
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.5 of 39
1. Whether the defendant no. 1 is the rightful and exclusive owner of the suit property? OPD1
2. Whether the plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit after manipulating and forging the sale purchase documents of defendant no. 1? OPD 1 & 2
3.Whether the plaint is liable to rejected being without any cause of action? OPD 1 & 2
4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD2
5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery for possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP
6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
7.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of damages as prayed for? If yes, for which period and at which rate?
OPP
8. Relief, if any.
Plaintiff's Evidence
10. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein, she relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Exhibit/Mark No. Description of Documents
1. Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) Copy of GPA dated 22.10.2013.
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.6 of 39
2. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) Agreement to sell dated 22.10.2013.
3. Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) Copy of affidavit of R. K. Sehgal
4. Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) Copy of possession letter
5. Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) Copy of deed of Will.
6. Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) Copy of receipt of payment made.
7. Ex. PW1/7 Original legal notice
8. Ex. PW1/8 Original proof of service
9. Mark A Copy of complaint dated 03.04.2019
10. Mark B Copy of complaint dated 02.01.2019
11. Mark C Copy of complaint given to ACP North Zone PS, Civil Lines
12. Mark D Copy of complaint given to Chowki Incharge Jharoda
13. Mark E Copy of complaint dated 21.08.2018
14. Mark F Copy of complaint dated 21.08.2018 given to SHO
15. Ex. PW1/15 Original site plan
11. Plaintiff did not examine any other witness as her witness and therefore, on 18.03.2025, PE was closed.
Defendant's Evidence
12. Defendants examined Ms. Sangeeta as DW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D2W1/A wherein, she relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Exhibit/Mark No. Description of Documents
1. Ex. D2W1/1 (OSR) Photocopy of marriage card CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.7 of 39 of the defendants no. 1 and 2.
2. Ex. D2W1/2 (colly) Copy of school ID card of Khushi Shresth daughter of defendants no. 1 and 2.
3. Ex. D2W1/3 Copy of electricity bill dated 29.09.2011 and 04.06.2012
13. The defendants did not examine any other witness and on 03.06.2025, Ld. LAC for the defendants closed DE on behalf of the defendants.
Final arguments by the Ld. Counsel for the parties
14. This court has perused the entire judicial record carefully and heard final arguments of the Ld. Counsel for both the parties. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants are the licensees in the suit property, and therefore, they are liable to vacate the property after the expiry of the license period.
15. It has also been argued that the defendant no. 2 filed a complaint against the defendant no. 1 and other family members, including the plaintiff, under the Domestic Violence Act, but here, they both are represented by a common advocate, and also, both are living together, which is sufficient to show that they conspired to usurp the suit property by using all means.
16. It has also been argued that the defendants have failed to lead any evidence to prove the factum of ownership, and therefore, it is proved that they have entered into the suit CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.8 of 39 property by the permission of the plaintiff, and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
17. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff could not prove her ownership of the suit property, as she had purchased the property by way of an alleged agreement to sell, Will. Possession Letter and General Power of Attorney dated 22.10.2013 instead of a registered sale deed which is clearly a gross violation of the settled law regarding the sale purchase of the suit property, and hence, the suit is simply liable to be dismissed.
18. It has also been argued that the suit is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the documents upon which the plaintiff is relying are nothing but forged and fabricated documents. The Ld. Counsel for the defendants also argued that the plaintiff has also failed to establish the fact that the defendants are her licensees or tenants in the suit property.
Issue-wise findings
1. Whether the defendant no. 1 is the rightful and exclusive owner of the suit property?
OPD1
19. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant no. 1. It is the claim of the defendant no. 1 that the suit property was purchased by him in the year 2010, and the original papers are in the custody of the plaintiff and her mother, which they refuse to give to the defendant no. 1, and therefore, the same could not be filed before the Court.
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.9 of 39
20. The arguments presented by defendant no. 1 concerning his claim of ownership of the suit property are not tenable and are ex-facie liable to be rejected, as it stands to reason that had he genuinely possessed ownership, he could have substantiated this claim through various alternative means, even in the absence of the original documents.
21. The plaintiff had the opportunity to acquire certified copies from the sub-registrar's office, which were essential for the purchase of the house; however, he failed to do so, and there is no evidence on record indicating that he made any attempts in this regard.
22. Furthermore, the plaintiff had the option to examine the previous owner from whom he acquired the suit property, or he could have called upon the witness to the transaction to prove the same. Additionally, the plaintiff could have summoned any competent officer from the Sub-Registrar's office during the proceedings to call for the record of sale deed to prove the fact of purchasing the same in 2010, yet it remains unclear why such course was not adopted by the defendant no. 1.
23. Moreover, the plaintiff did not clarify how and when those documents came into the possession of the plaintiff or her mother, nor did he explain why no action was taken by defendant no. 1 or why no legal proceedings were initiated CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.10 of 39 against the plaintiff or her mother when they refused to return the documents to defendant no. 1.
24. Furthermore, defendant no. 1 did not provide any details regarding the consideration for the suit property at the time of purchase, nor did he disclose how he secured the funds or present any documentary evidence of the payment made to the previous owner for the acquisition of the suit property.
25. Except for his bald averments, defendant no. 1 has failed to bring any evidence, be it documentary or oral, to substantiate his claim over the suit property as an owner. An age-old adage provides that "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"; therefore, defendant no. 1 has merely claimed to have purchased the suit property in 2010 but has not substantiated this claim, rendering it unacceptable.
26. It is settled law that it is the mandatory duty of the party to prove the facts on which it based its case. Even letting alone the proving of the same, during the entire trial, defendant no. 1 has failed to file or produce any evidence which prima-facie substantiate his claim of ownership over the suit property. Thus, this Court is adjudicating issue no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1.
Issue No. 22. Whether the plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit after manipulating and forging CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.11 of 39 the sale purchase documents of defendant no. 1? OPD 1 & 2
27. The onus to prove the issue was upon the defendants, as they have made the allegations of manipulation of the documents related to the sale purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff. In the preceding paragraph, this Court has already held that the defendant no. 1 failed to prove that he bought the suit property from the erstwhile owner by leading cogent evidence.
28. Even in the entire cross-examination of the PW1 the defendants have failed to put any question or suggestion regarding the manipulation of the property documents. It is settled law that nothing can be proved in the court of law in the absence of convincing evidence.
29. Moreover, the defendants have not asserted or demonstrated how and when the aforementioned documents were manipulated, nor have they indicated what measures they took against the plaintiff and her mother regarding this purported illegal act. It is a normal human conduct of a man of ordinary prudence to seek recourse from law enforcement if they believe someone is doing illegal acts; but no such actions were taken by the defendants, and they surprisingly chose to remain reticent.
30. Therefore, it may safely be held that the unsubstantiated claims are intrinsically untrustworthy, leading to a justifiable CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.12 of 39 conclusion that such allegations are indeed false and erroneous and thus cannot be believed or accepted. Accordingly, this issue is also liable to be adjudicated in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.3
3.Whether the plaint is liable to rejected being without any cause of action? OPD 1 & 2
31. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants, as the objection regarding lack of cause of action was raised by them in the written statement, though nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same. The meaning of the expression 'cause of action' has been duly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Rajasthan High Court Advocates Union vs Union of India 2001 (2) SCC 294: AIR 2001 SC 416' wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had observed that the expression cause of action in its restricted sense was used to refer to the circumstances forming infraction of the right of a party or the immediate occasion for the action.
32. Whereas in its wider sense, the term cause of action was used to describe every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support her right to a judgment in her favour from a court of law. Relevant extract of observation made in the case of ' Rajasthan High Court CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.13 of 39 Advocates Union (Supra)' are note in this case and are reproduced below:
"The expression cause of action has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in cause of action"
33. In the light of the afore-cited judgment it can safely be concluded that a cause of action is a bundle of facts on the ba- sis of which a right accrues in favour of one party to sue an- other party and to claim the relief in respect of the infringe- ment of his rights by another party from a Court of law. 'Cause of action' thus refers to a set of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining a favourable judgment from a court of law.
34. In the present case, the plaintiff has duly disclosed the cause of action in para 13 of the suit, where it has been men- tioned that the plaintiff allowed the defendants to reside in the suit property as a licensee. Moreover, when this Court has al- ready held that the defendant no. 1 could not prove his right ti- tle in the suit property, then it became a matter of trial whether CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.14 of 39 the defendants have actually been inducted into the suit prop- erty by the plaintiff as a licensee and are entitled to regain possession of the same; thus, the plaintiff duly disclosed the circumstances under which the cause of action arose in their favour.
35. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants. Thus, there is no reason to hold that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defen- dant; accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 4
4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD2
36. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant no. 2. The defendants are admittedly residing in the suit property, and the plaintiff has filed the suit for the recovery of the possession against both the defendants, and thus, it is beyond comprehension how the plaintiff doesn't have any cause of action or locus standi to seek possession from the defendants. The defendant no. 2 neither asked any question of the PW1 nor led any evidence which may give immunity to her from being arraigned as defendant no. 2 in the present suit or which may prove fatal for the claim of the plaintiff.
37. When this Court has already held that the plaintiff has a valid cause of action to institute the present suit against the CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.15 of 39 defendants, then ipso facto, it has the locus standi not only to file but also to continue with the case. The defendant no. 2 neither mentioned nor explained as to how the plaintiff doesn't have any cause of action against the defendants for seeking the relief of possession.
38. Thus, the unsubstantiated allegation of lack of locus standi of the plaintiff cannot be given any weightage and is liable to be rejected. Ergo, this court is also deciding this issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issues no. 5, 6 and 7
5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery for possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP
6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
7.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of damages as prayed for? If yes, for which period and at which rate?
OPP
39. The onus to prove these issues is upon the plaintiff. All these issues are interconnected and may be decided by the common findings; thus, this Court is taking the issues together for adjudication. The plaintiff has sought the possession from the defendants on the premise that having purchased the suit property from one Sh. R.K. Sehgal, on the basis of GPA Ex. PW1/1, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW1/2, Affidavit Ex. PW1/3, Possession Letter Ex. PW1/4, Will Ex. PW1/5 and Receipt of CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.16 of 39 Payment Ex. PW1/6, on 22.10.2013, she allowed the defendants, being her brother and brother-in-law, to reside in the suit property as licensees without rent for the payment of ₹1,500/- per month as utility expenses.
40. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that a suit for possession may be filed on the basis of the title or the prior possession. To substantiate the same, it is also relevant to mention the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled as 'Chander Dutt Sharma vs Prem Chand, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9903, (para-20)' "20. As far as the contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, of the recital in the Agreement to Sell executed by respondents No. 4&5 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, of respondents No. 4&5 having put the appellant/plaintiff in possession of the property alone constituting a proof of delivery of possession, is concerned, no merit is found therein also for the following reasons:
(A) A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property can be filed either under Section 5 or under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (B) A suit under Section 5, can be filed, either (i) on the basis of prior possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed, under Article 64 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, within twelve years from the date of dispossession; or, (ii) based on title, under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, within twelve year from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
(C) A suit under Section 6, can be filed if any person is dispossessed from immovable property without his consent, otherwise than in due process of law, but within six months of the date of dispossession.
(D) ...
(E) A mere possession of immovable property, even if accompanied with GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc., does not constitute title to the CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.17 of 39 immovable property. Reference, if any required in this regard can be made to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656 setting aside the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Asha M Jain v. Canara Bank, (2001) 94 DLT 841."
(F) The appellant/plaintiff, claiming only GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc. from respondents No. 4&5 in his favour, thus had/has no title to the property.
(G) An agreement purchaser, has no right, title, interest in immovable property and has only a right to seek specific performance of such agreement. Reference if any required can be made to (i) Jiwan Dass Rawal v. Narain Dass, AIR 1981 Del 291;
(ii) Deewan Arora v. Tara Devi Sen, (2009) 163 DLT 520; (iii) Sunil Kapoor v. Himmat Singh, (2010) 167 DLT 806; and, (iv) Samarjeet Chakravarty v. Tej Properties Private Limited, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3809.
(H)....
(I) Though the appellant/plaintiff, under Section 5, had a choice to sue either on the basis of prior possession or on the basis of title but the appellant/plaintiff, inspite of having no title to the property, filed the suit by drafting the plaint not on the basis of prior possession but on the basis of title. The appellant/plaintiff, throughout the plaint has described himself as purchaser of the property from respondents No. 4&5. Owing thereto only, issue also framed in the suit was qua ownership of appellant/plaintiff and not qua possession of the appellant/plaintiff. Rather, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff today also, upon it being put to him as to why the appellant/plaintiff did not sue for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell, states that there was/is no need to sue for specific performance since the appellant/plaintiff was already owner in possession of the immovable property.
(J) Owing to the appellant/plaintiff having sued on the basis of title which the appellant/plaintiff did not possess, and not on the basis of prior possession, Issue No. 1 got framed in the suit, was decided against the appellant/plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.18 of 39 (K) Though issues are to be framed by the Court but with the assistance of the counsels. If the appellant/plaintiff had sued for possession on the basis of prior possession and the Court had wrongly framed the issue treating the suit as on the basis of title, it was incumbent upon the appellant/plaintiff to apply for amendment of issues and which was not done by appellant/plaintiff.
(L) However, even if the appellant/plaintiff is treated as having sued for possession on the basis of prior possession and even if non seeking of an issue qua prior possession is ignored, the recovery of possession was sought not from respondents No. 4&5 but from respondents No. 1 to 3 and their mother Bhagwati and it was against respondents no. 1 to 3 and their mother that the appellant/plaintiff was required to prove prior possession. For proving such prior possession against respondents No. 1 to 3, admission of the respondents no. 4&5, in their written statement or in the Agreement to Sell or in their evidence, could not be relied by the appellant/plaintiff. The respondents No. 4&5 were not contesting the claim of appellant/plaintiff and rather filed a written statement admitting the material pleas in the plaint. A plaintiff, to prove case against defendant, cannot rely upon admission of another defendant who is not in contest with the plaintiff.
(M) The appellant/plaintiff was thus required to prove prior possession by some independent evidence.
(N) The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, on enquiry, admits that save for the recital in the Agreement to Sell of being delivered possession, there is no other evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff of being in possession of the property, to be able to sue for recovery of possession thereof on the basis of prior possession."
41. The plaintiff has filed the case and seek the possession on the basis of her title. Prior to adjudicate the claims of the plaintiff, this Court finds it necessary to consider whether, the documents upon which she has based her claim and even if these documents are determined as valid and legal, the CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.19 of 39 plaintiff can be deemed the owner of the suit property solely based on these documents. It is admitted that all these documents are unregistered, and moreover, none of them fulfill the criteria of a sale deed.
42. This Court is relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as 'Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Haryana and Anr, 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1360' wherein it has been established that the transfer of immovable property can only be legally done through a registered deed of conveyance. Documents such as Power of Attorney (PoA), Agreement to Sell, or Will, whether used alone or in combination, do not inherently confer ownership rights. These types of transactions cannot replace the necessity of the execution and the registration of the sale deeds.
43. In nutshell, the ownership of property cannot be transferred by just executing a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell and Will and only a duly stamped and registered sale deed conveys valid title. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining each of the aforementioned documents individually, discussed their respective nature and legal function in detail.
44. The relevant paras i.e. para 16 to 24 of 'Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd.(supra)' are reproduced as under for reference, that CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.20 of 39 Scope of an agreement of sale
16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam [(1977) 3 SCC 247] observed: (SCC pp. 254-55, paras 32-33 & 37) "32. A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [AIR 1967 SC 744 : (1967) 1 SCR 293] .) The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein.
33. In India, the word 'transfer' is defined with reference to the word 'convey'. ... The word 'conveys' in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership.
***
37. ... that only on execution of conveyance, ownership passes from one party to another...."
17. In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra [(2004) 8 SCC 614] this Court held: (SCC p. 619, para 10) "10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It disentitles the transferor from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed into service against a third party."
18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.21 of 39 stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter.
Scope of power of attorney
20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section 1-A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee.
21. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [(2005) 12 SCC 77] this Court held: (SCC pp. 90 & 101, paras 13 & 52) "13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience.
***
52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers of Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.22 of 39 to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee." An attorney-holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor.
Scope of Will
22. A will is the testament of the testator. It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the testator directing distribution of his estate upon his death. It is not a transfer inter vivos. The two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the lifetime of the testator. It is said that so long as the testator is alive, a will is not worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time revoke it. If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked. (See Sections 69 and 70 of the Succession Act, 1925.) Registration of a will does not make it any more effective.
Conclusion
23. Therefore, an SA/GPA/will transaction does not convey any title nor creates any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank [(2001) 94 DLT 841] , that the "concept of power-of-attorney sales has been recognised as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/will are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/will transactions are some kind of a recognised or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognise or accept SA/GPA/will transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.
24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.23 of 39 of "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales.
(Emphasis Supplied)
45. The law, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment, clearly indicates that the documents presented by the plaintiff, including the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, and Payment Receipt, which are part of Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/6, do not satisfy the legal criteria for a registered conveyance deed as required by the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'TP Act') and the Registration Act. Consequently, these documents do not convey ownership rights in the absence of a properly registered sale deed.
46. As a result, none of the documents filed and relied upon by the plaintiff qualify as a "sale deed" under the law and do not, on their own, grant any ownership rights to the plaintiff in the suit property. Since, in the present case, it is an admitted position that no registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be said to have acquired valid title to the suit property.
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.24 of 39
47. The plaintiff argues that while she may not strictly be the owner of the suit property, she possesses a superior right and interest in it compared to the defendants, particularly regarding the aforementioned unregistered documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/16. To support the arguments plaintiff has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of 'Karamvir vs Mann Singh, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3021' to contend that in a suit for possession or injunction, the plaintiff has just to prove the entitlement, which is better than the defendant and not the absolute ownership.
48. It has also been contended that the plaintiff, in terms of the aforesaid documents, she has shown a better title/right over the suit property. Ld. counsel has primarily relied upon the following para of the of the judgment in 'Karamvir (Supra)' "The appellants/plaintiffs therefor may not in the strict sense be owners of the property, but in a suit for possession or for injunction, a plaintiff has only to prove an entitlement to the Suit Property which is better than the respondent/defendant. Once the appellant/plaintiffs prove an entitlement better than the respondents/ defendants, it is upon the respondents/defendants to discharge the onus that they have a better entitlement to the Suit Property than as is pleaded by the appellants/plaintiffs. In this case, the respondents/defendants have not shown any vestige of title for they being entitled to the possession of the Suit Property and the appellants/plaintiffs have duly shown their entitlement by virtue of registration power of attorney dated 10.08.2019. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants/plaintiffs had a better title than the respondents/defendants and were therefore entitled to the relief that the respondents/defendants should CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.25 of 39 be injunctive from illegally dispossessing the appellants/plaintiffs from the Suit Property."
(Emphasis Supplied)
49. Relying upon the judgment, Karamvir (Supra), the plaintiff has argued that with the help of the above said documents on record, the plaintiff has been able to establish that she has a better title/right over the Suit Property as compared to the defendants, and as such, the onus is shifted upon the defendants to show that they had a better entitlement to the suit property than the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendants have failed to discharge the said onus.
50. It is necessary to mention that there is major difference between the case Karambir (Supra) and the present case. As in the case of Karambir (Supra), the General Power of Attorney was properly registered, whereas in the present case all the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6, upon which the plaintiff is claiming her ownership in the suit property are unregistered and have not been proved as per law. Neither has the plaintiff examined the executant of the documents, nor has she proved the signatures of the alleged executant on the said documents on record through admissible evidence.
51. To substantiate the same, this Court is relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court title as 'M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. vs J. Manjula & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448', wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon some previous judgments and held that, 'Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad (2018) 7 SCC 646, also the CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.26 of 39 judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in, titled as 'Channegowda vs N.S. Vishwanath 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 153, that document such as a Power of Attorney, even when coupled with an Agreement to Sell, do not confer any title or interest in immovable property and even assuming for the sake of argument that such document were to create any interest, that interest, being in the nature of a right in immovable property, would nonetheless require compulsory registration under the Registration Act and further in the absence of such registration, these documents would be inadmissible and could not be relied upon to establish or enforce any right in the immovable property. The relevant paras (51 to 56) are reproduced for as under, that, "51. Section 17(1)(b) prescribes that any document which purports or intends to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property is compulsorily registerable. Whereas, Section 49 prescribes that the documents which are required to be registered under Section 17 will not affect any immovable property unless it has been registered.
52. The aforesaid has been emphatically laid down by this Court in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 646. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:--
"20. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act mandates that any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and Section 49 of the Registration Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document and deals with the documents that are required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Since, the deed of exchange has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property, namely, RCC building, it requires registration under Section 17. Since the CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.27 of 39 deed of exchange has not been registered, it cannot be taken into account to the extent of the transfer of an immovable property."
(Emphasis Supplied)
53. Even from the combined reading of the POA and the agreement to sell, the submission of the appellants fails as combined reading of the two documents would mean that by executing the POA along with agreement to sell, the holder had an interest in the immovable property. If interest had been transferred by way of a written document, it had to be compulsorily registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. The law recognizes two modes of transfer by sale, first, through a registered instrument, and second, by delivery of property if its value is less than Rs. 100/-.
54. This principle was recently elaborated by the High Court of Karnataka in Channegowda v. N.S. Vishwanath, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 153. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:--
"14. An attempt is made on behalf of the plaintiffs to contend that the second plaintiff has sold the property as a General Power of Attorney Holder and not as a title holder. It is argued that the Power of attorney is not compulsorily registrable. The submission is noted with care. Suffice it to note that a deed of power of attorney is not one of the instruments specified under Section 17 of the Registration Act compulsorily registrable. However, if a power has been created empowering the attorney to sell the property i.e., if a document that gives a right to the attorney holder to sell the immovable property, then it would be a document creating an interest in immovable property, which would require compulsory registration. In the present case, the General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favor of the second plaintiff is coupled with interest i.e., power of alienation is conferred but it is not registered. The Apex Court in the SURAJ LAMP's case has held that the General Power of Attorney Sale, or Sale Agreements/Will do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be considered valid modes of transfer of immovable property. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the declaration of facts/statement of facts (affidavit) and General Power of Attorney do not convey title. They are inadmissible in evidence."
(Emphasis Supplied) CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.28 of 39
55. The High Court rightly held that even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the holder, this alone cannot be a factor to reach the conclusion that she had an interest in the POA. Thus, even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the same beneficiary, this cannot be the sole factor to conclude that she had an interest in the subject-matter. Even if such an argument were to persuade this Court, the document must have been registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In the absence of such registration, it would not be open for the holder of the POA to content that she had a valid right, title and interest in the immovable property to execute the registered sale deed in favour of appellant no. 2.
56. The practice of transferring an immovable property vide a GPA and agreement to sell has been discouraged by the following observations of this Court in Suraj Lamp (supra). The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:--
"24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. 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 recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales."
(Emphasis Supplied)
52. Thus, it is lucidly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the execution of a Power of Attorney, even if it is executed CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.29 of 39 alongwith an Agreement to Sell, doesn't create any right, title, or interest in immovable property, ipso-facto. Furthermore, even if it assumes that documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6, individually or collectively purport to create an interest in the immovable property, then the same in the absence of the mandatory registration as provided in Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, would make it inadmissible in law and it will not effect the property it deals with. Therefore, any claim of title or enforceable right based on such unregistered documents cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
53. Reliance may also be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as, 'Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disapproved the maintainability of a suit for possession of immovable property where the plaintiff claims ownership in the immoveable property solely on the basis of unregistered documents.
54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that when a claim of ownership is made, it must be substantiated through legally recognized and registered documents. Unregistered documents, such as a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, or Will, do not provide a valid title and cannot be used as a basis for claiming ownership or possession.
55. In that particular case, the plaintiff initiated a suit for possession relying on unregistered documents. The Hon'ble CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.30 of 39 High Court of Delhi, affirmed the judgment of Ld. Trial Court and passed judgment in favour of the plaintiff and held that the defendant had not successfully proven his defense and that the plaintiff held a superior title, and further, the plaintiff could be construed as the attorney of the previous owner.
56. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disagreed with the findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and reiterated the law as under, (para- 11 to 16), "11. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasised that irrespective of what was decided in Suraj Lamp & Industries [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2011) 183 DLT 1 (SC)] the fact remains that no [Ed. : See Editorial Note, appended to Headnote.] 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 Suraj Lamp & Industries [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656: (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351:
(2011) 183 DLT 1 (SC)] lays down the same proposition.
Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this Court:
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.31 of 39
(i) Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar [Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar, (2018) 7 SCC 639: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 696]
(ii) Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi [Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, (2024) 12 SCC 723: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1283]
(iii) Paul Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra [Paul Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, (2024) 13 SCC 219: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1216]
14. 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.
15. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656: (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351: (2011) 183 DLT 1 (SC)] 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 Lamp & Industries [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656: (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351: (2011) 183 DLT 1 (SC)] only approves the provisions in the two enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the same view.
16. 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."
(Emphasis Supplied)
57. Therefore, in light of the law as provided by the abovementioned judgment, it is well established that on the basis of the unregistered documents alone, the plaintiff is not CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.32 of 39 entitled to maintain an a suit for possession, wherein she sets up a title in the plaint and claimed herself as an owner of the suit property.
58. The facts of the present matter can also be examined in the light of the judgment recently passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, title as 'Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1879', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, set aside the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which has affirmed the Ld. Trial Court's judgment by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for the relief of possession, mandatory injunction, and declaration despite there being no registered sale deed executed validating conveyance in the plaintiff's favour.
59. Thus, the claim of plaintiff of seeking possession on the basis of title is not sustainable as based on the documents legally not tenable. Thus, further it has to be examined that whether plaintiff can claim possession on the basis of previous possession.
60. That in the event, if the plaintiff is unable to establish ownership over the suit property as an owner, then it is settled law that a suit for eviction may still be maintainable, provided the plaintiff can prove by credible evidence, her prior possession and that the defendants were inducted into the suit property under a license, subsequently revoked. In such cases, CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.33 of 39 the possession of the plaintiff itself, if shown to be lawful and prior in point of time, would entitle her to seek eviction of a licensee or a trespasser.
61. In the present case, although the plaintiff has averred in the pleadings that she came into possession of the Suit Property pursuant to its alleged purchase from Sh. R.K. Sehgal, she has not produced any credible or substantive evidence on record to prove such possession, either immediately after or as a consequence of the purported sale.
62. Though, no document has been produced to demonstrate that she ever took possession of the Suit Property, or that she exercised any rights of ownership or occupation qua the same. The plaintiff has placed reliance on the "possession letter", which forms part of the documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6, to assert that possession of the Suit Property was duly handed over to her following the purchase of the same from Sh. Raj Bahadur Singh through the documents collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/2. However, as detailed below, the said possession letter fails to advance the plaintiff's case in any substantive manner.
63. Firstly, the said "possession letter" purportedly, issued by Sh. R.K.Sehgal as alleged seller in favour of the plaintiff, has not been proved in accordance with law. The plaintiff has neither examined the executant nor got his signatures proved in accordance with law. Further, neither any attesting witness CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.34 of 39 was examined who could establish its due execution. Thus, the possession letter remains an unproven document.
64. Secondly, the defendants, not being a party to or privies to the said letter, cannot be saddled with any legal obligation arising from it. This becomes even more relevant in light of the defendants consistent stand that they have been in possession of the suit property well before the alleged sale of the same by Sh. R.K.Sehgal to the plaintiff. In such a scenario, a document like the "possession letter", purportedly, executed between the plaintiff and the alleged seller, cannot be used to establish the factum of possession qua the suit property against a non-signatory defendants.
65. In the light of this discussion, it becomes evident that the plaintiff's reliance on the "possession letter" is of no legal consequence. It neither proves her possession nor creates any enforceable right against the defendants. The absence of corroborative documentary or ocular evidence further weakens her claim. Consequently, the assertion of possession by the plaintiff stands unsubstantiated and fails to inspire confidence of this Court.
66. It is contended by the plaintiff that she had purchased the suit property by executing the necessary documents in this regard, Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6, and after the purchase, the defendants were permitted to reside in one portion of the suit property, as the defendants were her brother and sister-in-law.
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.35 of 39 Per contra, it is the contention of the defendant no. 1 that he had purchased the property and had been residing in the suit property prior to the date of the alleged purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff and was never a licensee of the plaintiff.
67. It is a settled principle of law that in respect of relief claimed by a plaintiff, he has to stand on his own legs by proving his case. Just because the claim of ownership over the suit property by the defendant no. 1 was denied by this Court, that doesn't give any immunity to the plaintiff from the obligation to prove her case. The plaintiff has claimed the relief of possession in the present suit. Thus, it has to be seen from the evidence led by the plaintiff as to whether she has succeeded in proving her case.
68. This Court has already held that the plaintiff could not have become the owner of the suit property by virtue of the set of documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have dispossessed her but that the defendants have overstayed in the property despite the termination of their alleged license.
69. It is noteworthy that the plaintiff claims the defendants were licensees of his property; however, the plaint fails to specify when they were inducted. It only vaguely states that permission was granted in January 2014, yet no documents or witnesses were presented in court to substantiate the plaintiff's CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.36 of 39 prior possession of the suit property or to confirm that the defendants were granted possession by the plaintiff.
70. Further, the authority to grant a license is governed by Sections 53 and 54 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. These provisions delineate both competence of the grantor and the manner in which a license may be conferred. As per Section 53 of Indian Easement Act "53. A license may be granted by any one in the circumstances and to the extent in and to which he may transfer his interests in the property affected by the license".
71. Section 53 specifies that a license can be granted by any individual who has the legal capacity to transfer their interest in the property affected by the license. This provision emphasizes that the authority to grant a license is intrinsically connected to the ability to alienate proprietary interests. Therefore, an individual without sufficient legal interest in the property cannot confer license rights. When the plaintiff doesn't have the ownership of the suit property and also fails to prove her prior possession, makes her disentitle to confer license to reside in the suit property to defendants.
72. It was further contended that the electricity connection for the suit property was registered in the plaintiff's name, indicating his possession of the property. It is important to note that the defendant has not disputed the plaintiff's possession of a portion of the suit property. However, the CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.37 of 39 presence of an electricity connection does not necessarily imply that the plaintiff had exclusive possession of the entire property.
73. In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she was the owner or in prior possession of the portion of the property involved. Apart from mere averments in the plaint, the plaintiff could not bring on record any evidence, such as a written license agreement, acknowledgment of license fee, any contemporaneous communication, or any other witness testimony supporting her claim.
74. The plaintiff has further failed to prove that the defendant was a licensee or even a tenant under her. There is no rent agreement or license deed executed, and there is no evidence of any rent or license fee ever being advanced by the defendant to the plaintiff.
75. Keeping in view the discussion above, where the plaintiff has failed to establish her ownership over the suit property and further failed to prove that the defendants were inducted as tenants/licensees by her into the suit property, then relief of possession cannot be given to her against the defendants. Once the relief of possession is denied to the plaintiff, then the relief of mesne profits and injunction also goes ipso facto in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Thus, all CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.38 of 39 three issues are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Relief
76. On the basis of the above discussion, the suit of plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
77. No order as to costs.
78. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
79. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliances.
Pronounced in the open Court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma) on 27.10.2025 DJ-02/CENTRAL/THC/DELHI
CS DJ No. 131/2020 CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.39 of 39