Delhi District Court
Pawan Kumar vs Nanhi Devi on 2 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. SAHIL KHURMI
CNR No:DLCT030005302010
CS SCJ/601192/2016
Sh. Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Sita Ram
R/o W. No.23, Sunaro Ki Gali,
P.O. Pilani, Distt Jhunjhunu,
(Rajasthan). ...Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Nanhi Devi (since deceased)
now represented by her grand daughter
Smt. Gomti
R/o 540/4, Nai Basti,
Kishan Ganj,
New Delhi. ...Defendant
Date of institution of suit 26.03.2010
Date on which reserved for judgment 24.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 02.06.2025
Decision DISMISSED
Digitally signed
by SAHIL
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL KHURMI
Date:
Page No.1 of 51
KHURMI 2025.06.02
16:24:33
+0530
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY AND FUTURE
DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts as per the plaint are that the defendant is a tenant in respect of one plot bearing No.540/4, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, measuring about 15 sq yards, situated in Khasra No.459-60, Patti Jahanuma, Kishan Ganj, Delhi on monthly rent of Rs.5/- under previous owner Sh. Baha Ud Din Faridi and defendant used to pay rent to the previous owner in respect of the plot bearing No.540/4, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, New Delhi against receipts and used to sign the counter foils and the tenancy of defendant started from 1st day of each English Calendar Month and comes to an end on the last day of said calendar month.
1.2 It is further stated that previous owner Baha ud din Faridi had sold the entire property including the tenanted plot to the plaintiff and attorned all the tenants including the defendant to the plaintiff.
1.3 It is further stated that defendant failed to pay the rent for the last more than three years and also raised unauthorised construction over the tenanted plot and therefore, in view of defaulting conduct of defendant in paying the arrears of rent and also raising unauthorised construction over the tenanted plot, the tenancy of defendant was terminated w.e.f. 31.01.2010 by the plaintiff and the defendant was required to remove the superstructure from the tenanted plot and to hand over the peaceful CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Page No.2 of 51 Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:24:38 +0530 vacant possession of the same on or before 01.02.2010.
1.4 It is further stated that defendant despite service of statutory notice u/s 106 of TPA dated 02.01.2010 failed to comply with the notice and to vacate the tenanted plot after removing the superstructure raised over the said plot and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of a decree of possession in respect of the tenanted plot bearing No.540/4, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110007 situated in Khasra No.459-60, Patti Jahanuma, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
1.5 It is further stated that the tenanted premises could fetch Rs.1,000/- per month as rent, if the same was let out to any person and as such the plaintiff is also entitled to claim an amount of Rs.1,000/- w.e.f. 01.02.2010 to 28.02.2010 and future damages @ Rs.1,000/- per month from 01.03.2010 till delivery of possession of the tenanted plot by the defendant. Hence the present suit.
2. Summons of the suit have been served on the defendant, upon which defendant appeared through counsel and the matter was listed for filing of written statement on behalf of defendant.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
3. It is the case of the defendants that Shah Mohd Sanauddin was owner of the land and built up property in the locality known as Dargah Chisti Chaman, Bagh Kare Khan, Delhi besides other properties. That defendant was inducted as a tenant more than 40 years ago rent was being paid in respect of tenanted premises to CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.3 of 51 by SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:24:45 +0530 Shah Mohd Sanauddin through his rent collector Farid Ahmed Faridi. That the rent was being paid to the said owner/landlord till 1966 and thereafter nobody came to collect the rent. That Shah Mohd Sanauddin expired issueless and Sh. Faridi Ahmed the rent collector was not the owner of the said property and it has been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction that Sh. Faridi Ahmed has falsely prescribed the properties owned and left by Shah Mohd Sanauddin were his ancestral properties as the said Shah Mohd Sanauddin died issueless without leaving of his relation or legal representatives in India because his brother had left India during partition of country and settled in Pakistan. That his nephews are living in Pakistan and therefore, it was held that Sh. Faridi Ahmed cannot claim any right, title or interest in the Estate left by late Shah Mohd Sanuddin in India. That it was alleged that Shah Farid Ahmed Faridi inherited the property owned by him subsequently on the death of Shah Farid Ahmed, his only son had Bahauddin Faridi inherited all the properties including the property in dispute and became the absolute owner of the same.
3.1 That it is a settled principle of law that after the death of the owner of the suit property the rent collector does not get any title in the suit property, hence, he can also not transfer any title of the suit property to his son, Sh. Bahauddin. That the then ld. Civil Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 24.02.2001 has specifically held that Sh. Bahauddin had also failed to prove his title over the suit property, thus Sh. Bahaddin had no right, title or interest over the said plot of lands and in the absence of the same he could not have executed any property documents in favour of the plaintiff in the present suit. That plaintiff also does not derive any right, title or CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Page No.4 of 51 Digitally signed by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:24:49 +0530 interest in the suit property.
3.2 It is further stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed in as much as the plaintiff is not the owner of the property in dispute. That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit or seek reliefs as has been sought in the present suit.
That the present suit is not maintainable in law. That Sh. Bahauddin was never the owner of the said plot of land and this fact has also been settled by a judicial pronouncement by a court of a competent jurisdiction and hence, it is not open to the plaintiff to contend that Sh. Bahauddin Faridi was the owner of the said plot of land. That the plaintiff alleges to have purchased this plot of land from a person who had no right, title or interest in respect of said land, hence, no right flows in favour of plaintiff to institute the present suit. That plaintiff has failed to disclose any assertive rights over the property of which he claims possession.
3.3 That plaintiff has also not filed the proper documents of the property in which he is claiming his ownership. That documents of ownership as relied upon by the plaintiff are unenforceable under law and liable to be impounded. That the present suit is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. That the defendant has been exerting all rights as owner of the suit property. That defendant has been in open actual constructive possession of the suit property for the last more than four decades without any protest or demur from the real owner of the suit premises and has thus perfected her title by adverse possession over the suit property. That plaintiff is neither the owner nor can claim himself to be the owner of the suit property. That the suit of the plaintiff is CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.5 of 51 by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:24:54 +0530 liable to be dismissed.
3.4 That plaintiff cannot assert himself to be the owner of the suit property in as much as he has not purchased it from a person having a valid title to the suit property and also the documents evidencing the transactions of sale are not legally binding and enforceable under law. That plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property on the basis of unregistered documents being the GPA and Agreement to Sell dated 24.09.2009 executed in his favour. That the said documents are in contraventions of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act as also the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. That the documents being unregistered documents are liable to be impounded by this Hon'ble court.
3.5 That it is the cardinal principle of law that an agreement to sell does not confer any right, title or interest upon the person in whose favour the said document is executed. That as such the rights of the plaintiff are in dispute more so when the answering defendant himself as the owner of the suit property by virtue of the doctrine of adverse possession. That admittedly the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. That plaintiff has not valued the suit property properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. That the court fees payable is on the market value of the suit property and hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.6 That the present suit is false, frivolous and does not inspire any confidence. That the averments made in the suit are mere CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.6 of 51 by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:25:02 +0530 concoctions and false allegations have been leveled by the plaintiff for her own ulterior purposes. That the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Court and has misled this court to believe in to the existence of the fact which never existed at all. That the plaint of plaintiff is devoid of all merits. That no cause of action has arisen in favour of plaintiff to file the present suit.
REPLICATION
4. Replication has been filed on behalf of plaintiff to the written statement of defendant thereby denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint.
ISSUES
5. Thereafter on completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 11.09.2012:-
1. Whether the defendant is owner of property bearing Plot No.540/4, measuring 15 sq yards situated in Khasra No.459-60, Patti Jahanuma, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi by way of adverse possession?OPD
2. Whether this court lacks pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected on the ground that there is no cause of action against the defendant?
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally Page No.7 of 51 signed by SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:25:10 +0530 OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s 34 of Specific Relief Act?OPD
5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff is landlord of plot No.540/4, measuring 15 sq yards situated in Khasra No.459-60, Patti Jahanuma, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi?OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of plot no.540/4, measuring 15sq yards situated in Khasra No.459-
60, Patti Jahanuma, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi?OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages, if so, at what rate and for which period?OPP
9. Relief 5.1 Thereafter the matter was fixed for recording of plaintiff evidence.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff has got examined himself as PW-1.
6.1 PW-1 tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 relied on the following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 Site Plan of the plot. Ex.PW1/2 to Original rent receipts in Urdu. Ex.PW1/4 CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Page No.8 of 51 Digitally signed by SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date: 2025.06.02 16:25:16 +0530 Ex.PW1/5 to Hindi translation of original rent receipts. Ex.PW1/7 Ex.PW1/8 Notice cum Intimation Letter dated 01.10.2009. Ex.PW1/9 Attornment Letter dated 01.10.2009. Ex.PW1/10 Postal receipt. Ex.PW1/11 Returned Acknowledgment Card. Ex.PW1/12 Legal notice dated 02.01.2010. Ex.PW1/13 Postal receipt of notice. Ex.PW1/14 UPC slip. Ex.PW1/15 Returned Acknowledgment Card. Mark A Photocopy of Power of Attorney. Mark B Photocopy of the Agreement to Sale. Mark C Photocopy of affidavit executed by Sh. Bahauddin. Mark D Photocopy of Khasra Girdawari. 6.2 PW-1 has been duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. 6.3 It is pertinent to mention that PW-1 has been re-examined
on 29.04.2023 whereby he relied upon the following documents:-
Ex.PW1/16 Photocopy of GPA dated 24.09.2009 (original is filed in CS No.1194/16) Ex.PW1/17 Photocopy of Agreement to sell dated 24.09.2009.
(original is filed in CS No.1194/16) Ex.PW1/18 Photocopy of original affidavit dated CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed by SAHIL Page No.9 of 51 KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:25:21 +0530 24.09.2009.
(original is filed in CS No.1194/16) 6.4 Sh. Shah Baha-ud-din Faridi has been examined as PW-2. PW-2 tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A and relied on already Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 and documents already Mark A to Mark D. PW-2 has been duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant.
6.5 PW-3 was the summoned witness/Patwari from SDM Office, Civil Lines, Delhi, who proved on record the Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 Ex.PW3/A(OSR), He further proved on record the original khasra girdawari for the year 2009 to 2013 Ex.PW3/B(OSR), Intekal/Mutation having intekal No.1597, 1623, 1652 and 1653, Ex.PW3/C to Ex.PW3/F respectively in respect of land falling in Khasra No.459 and 460, Pattijahanuma, Village Delhi and deposed that as per jamabandi record, Sh. Shah Mohd Sanauddin, son of Sh. Shah Mohd Abdul Gaffur Kaum Sheikh Qureshi Shahdeh was the owner of the above said suit land and thereafter the land was mutated in the name of Shah Ahmed Faridi, son of Sh. Shah Abdul Ahmed, Shakinde Kaum Sheikh Qureshi vide intekal No.1597. That at present the land is mutated in the name of Shah Bahaddin Faridi, son of Sh. Shah Ahmed Faridi vide intekal No.1623. PW-3 has been duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant.
6.6 PW-4 was the translator who proved on record the translated copy of intekal No.1597 in Hindi Ex.PW4/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW-4 has been duly cross examined by Ld. Digitally signed by CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI Page No.10 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:25:26 +0530 Counsel for defendant.
7. It is pertinent to mention that no defence evidence was led on behalf of LR of deceased defendant vide separate statement of Smt. Gomti Devi LR of deceased defendant recorded on 22.07.2024 in this regard and thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. Final arguments were heard at length. Record of the case file has been perused carefully.
FINDINGS OF COURT
9. For the sake convenience, first the issue no. 6, 7 and 8 are taken up for consideration.
Issue No.6. Whether the plaintiff is landlord of plot No.540/4, measuring 15 sq yards situated in Khasra No.459-60, Patti Jahanuma, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi?OPP Issue No.7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of plot no.540/4, measuring 15sq yards situated in Khasra No.459-60, Patti Jahanuma, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi?OPP Issue No.8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages, if so, at what rate and for which period?OPP
10. All the aforesaid issues are taken up together being interconnected. The onus to prove these issues is on the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by SAHILSAHIL KHURMI CS SCJ No.601192/2016 KHURMI Date: Page No.11 of 51 2025.06.02 16:25:32 +0530 CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN BRIEF
11. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant is a tenant in respect of suit property on monthly rent of Rs.5/- under the previous owner Sh. Baha-Ud-Din Faridi. That the defendant used to pay rent to the previous owner. That previous owner Shah Baha- ud-din Faridi has sold the entire property including the tenanted plot to the plaintiff and attorned all the tenants including the defendant to the plaintiff. That the defendant failed to pay the rent for the last more than three years and also raised unauthorised construction over the tenanted plot. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT IN BRIEF
12. It is the case of defendant that Shah Mohd. Sanauddin was owner of the land and built up property in the locality known as Dargah Chisti Chaman, Bagh Kare Khan, Delhi besides other properties and the defendant was inducted as a tenant more than 40 years ago and rent was being paid in respect of tenanted premises to Shah Mohd Sanauddin through his rent collector Farid Ahmed Faridi and the said rent was being paid till 1956 and thereafter no body came to collect the rent. That Shah Mohd Sanauddin expired issueless and Sh. Faridi Ahmed, the rent collector was not the owner of the said property and it has been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction that Sh. Faridi Ahmed has falsely prescribed the properties owned and left by Shah Mohd Sanauddin Digitally signed CS SCJ No.601192/2016 by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.12 of 51 SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:25:37 +0530 were his ancestral properties as the said Shah Mohd Sanauddin died issueless without leaving any of his relation or legal representative in India because his brother had left India during partition of country and settled in Pakistan. It is further stated that his nephews are living in Pakistan and therefore it was held that Sh. Faridi Ahmed cannot claim any right, title or interest in the Estate left by Late Shah Mohd Sanauddin in India.
13. It is further stated that it was alleged that Shah Farid Ahmed Faridi inherited the property owned by him subsequently on the death of Shah Farid Ahmed, his only son had Bahauddin Faridi inherited all the properties including the property in dispute and became the absolute owner of the same, however it is settled principle of law that after the death of the owner of the suit property the rent collector does not get any title in the suit property, hence, he can also not transfer any title of the suit property to his son Sh. Baha-ud-din.
14. It is further stated that the ld. Court of Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 24.02.2001 has specifically held that Sh. Baha-ud-din had also failed to prove his title over the suit property. It is further stated that thus Sh. Baha-ud-din had no right, title or interest over the said plot of lands and in the absence of the same he could not have any executed any property documents in favour of the plaintiff in the instant suit.
15. It is further stated that defendant has been in open actual constructive possession of the suit property for the last more than Digitally signed CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.13 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:25:42 +0530 four decades without any protest or demur from the real owner of the suit premises and has thus perfected his title by adverse possession over the suit property.
16. It is further stated that plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property on the basis of unregistered documents being the GPA and Agreement to Sell dated 24.09.2009 executed in his favour which are in contraventions of the provisions of the transfer of property Act as also the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and the said documents does not confer any right, title or interest upon the plaintiff.
17. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 24.02.2001 titled as Mohan Singh vs. Baha Uddin Faridi and others of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi, in which it is held by the said Court that:-
"16. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi and Khasra girdawari are maintained by the revenue department in respect of agricultural land of rural area under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and Delhi Land Revenue Act. The locality known as Dargah Chisti Chaman and Bagh Kare Khan are within the limits of village Sandhora Kalan which was urbanised in the year 1962 by issuing notification under section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and after issuing of the Delhi Land Reforms Act became in applicable. He has CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Page No.14 of 51 Digitally signed by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:25:46 +0530 further argued that defendant No.1 in connivance with Abdul Wahid and Patwari committed forgery in the revenue record and got his name entered in the revenue record on 27.01.1982 has also alleged in the plaint that the documents are forged. He has further argued that in Khasra girdawari i.e. Ex.DW2/7 which is in hindi the father's name of Shah Mohd Sannauddin is clearly mentioned as Shah Mohd. Abdul Gaffur. The defendant No.1 as DW2 also in his cross- examination has admitted that Ex.DW2/7 has been filed by him and that in the document Ex.DW2/7 the name of father of Shah Mohd. Sanauddin is shown as Mohd. Abdul Gaffur Sheikh. However, he has denied the suggestion that the name of father of Mohd. Sanauddin was Mohd. Abdul Gaffur. He has argued that from the document itself is proved that the documents are forged and fabricated and on the basis of documents Ex.DW2/3 to Ex.DW2/8, he can not claim himself to be the owner of the property.
17. Although, the defendant No.1 claimed himself to be the nephew of Shri Sanauddin who admittedly is the owner of the suit property, however, he has failed to produce any evidence to show that Mohd. Sanauddin and Shri Farid Ahmed Faridi i.e. father of defendant No.1 were real brothers.Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.15 of 51 Date: KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:25:51 +0530
18. I have also gone through the document Ex.DW2/3 to Ex.DW2/8 and from the documents it is revealed that area or locality in respect of which the entries have been made has not been specified in the Khasra Girdawari and Jama Bandi and the register of mutation exhibit on the record. Besides this, from the documents even the relationships between the owner and the father of defendant No.1 is not proved. In the register of mutation Ex.DW2/6 and Khasra Girdawari Ex.DW2/4, the name of father of Shah Farid Ahmed Faridi has been given as Shah Abdul Ahmed whereas in the Khasra Girdawari Ex.DW2/7 and Jama Bandi Ex.DW2/8, the name of father of original owner i.e. Mohd.
Shannauddin has been mentioned as Shah Mohd. Abdul Gaffur. As the certified copies of revenue records placed on the record do not even specify about property in respect of which they relate, no evidentiary value can be attached to them so far as the disposal of present suit is concerned. Even otherwise, the entries in the mutation register in the name of father of defendant No.2 also do not confer any proprietary title upon him. In this regard, I rely upon the judgment cited by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff in Bhaguji Bayaji Pokale & others Vs. Kantilal Baban Gunjawate & others, 1998(1) Civil Court cases 629(Bombay) wherein CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed by SAHIL Page No.16 of 51 SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:25:56 +0530 it was held that:
"Mere mutation entry or change in any mutation entry does not confer any title to any immovable property."
Similarly in Balwant Singh & Another Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.R.'s & Ors., 1997 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 262 (S.C.). wherein it was held that:-
"Mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title-Those entries are relevant only for purpose of collection of land revenue."
Even otherwise, the Land Revenue Act is not applicable to the locality known as Dhargah Chisti Chaman falling in village Sodhoram Kalan as the same ceased to be the rural area after notification by MCD u/s 506 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The letter issued by MCD for mutation in favour of defendant No.1 Ex.DW2/9 also does not confer any title upon the defendant No.1.
19. The plaintiff has also been able to prove that he is in possession of suit property as a tenant as the suit for recovery of possession against defendant No.1 has already been decreed by Shri Sukhdev Singh, Ld. C.J. vide his judgment Ex.DW1/7 which has also been upheld in appeal vide order Ex/DW1/8. The defendant has failed to show that defendant No.2 is in possession of suit property.
Digitally
signed by
SAHIL
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL KHURMI Page No.17 of 51
KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02
16:26:02
+0530
20. As the plaintiff has been able to prove that he is a tenant in possession of the suit property and defendant No.1 has no right to dispose of the property and defendant No.1 has also failed to prove his title over the suit property and his right to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property, the sale deed deserves to be decreed Null and Void. Besides this, defendant No.2 has failed to prove his possession over the suit property whereas the possession of plaintiff has been sufficiently proved. Thus it is proved that the averments contained in sale deed that the Vendee is already in actual physical possession of the suit property as a tenant are incorrect. For this reason, also, the sale deed is invalid and void documents. Besides this, the defendants have not specifically denied in the written statement that suits for ejectment in respect of suit property and the dispute regarding the ownership of defendant No.1 is already pending. In view of the pendency of the dispute regarding the ownership of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 has no right to sell the suit property to the third person u/s 55 of Transfer of Property Act."
18. Thus, it is undisputed fact that vide judgement dated 24.02.2001 of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi, titled as Mohan Singh vs. Baha Uddin Faridi and others, it has been held by Hon'ble Court that the defendant Baha Uddin CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed by SAHIL Page No.18 of 51 SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:26:06 +0530 Faridi had failed to prove his title over the suit property and consequently, he had no right to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property and thus, the sale deed deserves to be decreed Null and Void. The said judgement was admittedly never challenged by Sh. Baha-ud-din. It is interesting to note that in cross examination of PW-2 Sh. Baha-ud-din, specific questions were asked from him regarding the aforesaid judgement dated 24.02.2001 but he gave evasive denials of the same. Despite showing the certified copy of judgement dated 24.02.2001 to him, PW-2 Sh. Baha-ud-din refused that the said judgement was decided against him whereby it was held by the Court that he doesn't have any right in the suit property. The same is contrary to the judicial record of judgment dated 24.02.2001. PW-2 Sh. Baha-
ud-din was further asked whether he filed any appeal against the said judgement dated 24.02.2001, to which he stated that he doesn't remember.
ENTRY IN THE REVENUE RECORD DOESN'T CONFER TITLE
19. The entire case of the plaintiff to prove his ownership and title of the suit property is based on the unregistered agreement to sell and GPA dated 24.09.2009 which is executed by Sh. Baha-ud- din in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that Sh. Baha-ud-din had derived title/ownership on the basis of entry in the revenue record of Khasra Girdawari. PW-2 Sh. Baha-ud-din has also deposed in his evidence dated 16.05.2014 that, "It is correct that the entire transaction of sale was conducted by me purely on the basis of Khasra Girdawari." The plaintiff has Digitally signed by SAHIL CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL KHURMI Page No.19 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:26:14 +0530 examined PW-3 who is Patwari to prove the entries in the revenue record.
20. Now, I shall deal with the moot question that whether entry in the revenue record (Khasra Girdawari) confers any title of property or not.
21. Khasra Girdawari: Khasra Girdawari is an annual record maintained by revenue authorities that reflects the cultivation and occupancy of land. However, as per the settled law, it is not classified as a record of rights under various land revenue laws. It serves primarily as an administrative tool for tracking land use and does not confer ownership or title to the land. Khasra Girdawari does not constitute a record of rights. It is merely an administrative entry made by the Patwari during the girdawari operations, which reflects the status of land use at a given time. Now, I shall be discussing the settled law, as decided by Various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India that Khasra Girdawari is not a record of rights and it doesn't confer any title. It is also discussed in great detail that entry in the revenue records doesn't confer any title/ownership.
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
22. In Panne Singh vs Guman Singh (decided on 09.03.1964) a reference was made by double bench of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court to a larger bench of four Judges of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court on a specific question that "Is khasra girdawari a record of right"?, which ruled that, "We are, therefore, clearly of the CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed by Page No.20 of 51 SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:26:23 +0530 opinion that the khasra girdawari is not a record of rights".
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
23. In Beant Singh vs Natha Singh AIR1966HP48, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh High Court that, "The entries in Khasra Girdawari do not carry a presumption of truth under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, as they are not considered a record of rights or an annual record. Such entries merely constitute a piece of evidence but not a presumptive piece of evidence."
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
24. In Nathu Ram vs DDA & Anr. RSA 64/2020 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 1 February, 2022, it was held that:
"23. As for the other contentions made by the parties and evidence presented, this Court observes first, that the Plaintiffs have heavily relied upon their and their family members' names reflecting in certain revenue records such as Khasra girdawaris to establish that they have been in ownership and possession of the suit property. However, it is the settled position in law that reflection of a party's name in the revenue records cannot confer title. This was most recently upheld in Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag Digitally CS SCJ No.601192/2016 signed by SAHIL Page No.21 of 51 SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:26:28 +0530 V. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Thr. Lrs. [Civil Appeal No 7017 of 2009, decided on 5th October, 2021], where the Supreme Court held: "26. This Court in a judgment reported as Prahlad Pradhan and Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors. negated argument of ownership based upon entries in the revenue records. It was held that the revenue record does not confer title to the property nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. The Court held 7 (2019) 10 SCC 259 as under:
"5. The contention raised by the appellants is that since Mangal Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self-acquired property. The said contention is legally misconceived since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question. As a consequence, merely because Mangal Kumhar's name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property."
(emphasis supplied) Digitally signed CS SCJ No.601192/2016 by SAHIL Page No.22 of 51 SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:26:39 +0530
25. It is relevant to mention that the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nathu Ram vs DDA (Supra) was recently reiterated and referred to by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Udaiveer & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. W.P. (C) 2505/2023 decided on 3 February, 2025, whereby, it was held that: "Therefore, the mere mention in some years of khasra girdawari showing possession, cannot by itself confer ownership and title in respect of such precious land."
26. In Rajeev Sharma vs Shri Raj Kumar & Ors. AIR ONLINE 2018 DEL 2345, it was again observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that, "It is no longer res integra that Khasra/Girdawari does not confer a title."
27. In Bal Bhagwan vs Delhi Development Authority CM (M) 416/2019 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 18.12.2020, it was held that:
53. It is also well settled that jamabandis and khasra girdawaris do not vest any ownership rights, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Company, (2013) 9 SCC 319. In any event, even the khasra girdawari for the year 2000-01 to 2004-05, clearly shows that the Plaintiff does not have any ownership rights.
(emphasis supplied) CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed by SAHIL Page No.23 of 51 KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:26:44 +0530 HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
28. In State of Punjab vs Bhagwantpal Singh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 479, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that Revenue Record Entries doesn't Confer Title. It was held that:
"Merely because the name of the plaintiff continued in the revenue records (Jama Bandis), it would not confer any title upon him. Revenue records (Jama Bandis) are only entries for the purpose of realising tax by the Municipal Corporations or land revenue by Gram Sabhas.
29. In P. Kishore Kumar vs Vittal K. Patkar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
11. It is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title.
12. This Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and Ors. held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.
13. This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh & Ors vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs and Ors.Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.24 of 51 KHURMI Date: 2025.06.02 16:26:50 +0530 wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land.
14. In Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., this Court after considering a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle of law as follows:
"6. Mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose."
15. We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary.
(emphasis supplied)
30. In Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) thr. LRs. and Ors. vs. Shivnath and Ors. (2019) 6 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"44. In the suit for declaration for title and Digitally signed by CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI Page No.25 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:26:55 +0530 possession, the Plaintiffs-Respondents could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the DefendantsAppellants. The burden is on the Plaintiffs-Respondents to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The Plaintiffs- Respondents have neither produced the title document i.e. patta-lease which the Plaintiffs-Respondents are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence. As noted above, the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenue entries for few Khataunis are not proof of title; but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title."
(emphasis supplied)
31. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors. vs Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors AIR 2008 SC 901, Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that, "A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession."
32. In Union of India & Ors. v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 269, it was held by Hon'ble Digitally signed CS SCJ No.601192/2016 by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.26 of 51 SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02
16:27:00
+0530
Supreme Court of India that:
17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff."
33. Thus the upshot of the above discussion is that it is a trite law that revenue record especially Khasra Girdawari is not document of title and mere entry in revenue records doesn't confer any title. Thus, this Court has come to irresistible conclusion that Sh. Baha-ud-din was not the owner of the suit property and he had no title of the suit property.
Digitally signed by SAHIL CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL KHURMI Page No.27 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:27:07 +0530 NO ONE CAN TRANSFER A BETTER TITLE THAN HE HIMSELF HAS
34. This takes me to the next limb of argument, very well taken by the counsel for the defendant, that no one can transfer a better title than he himself has. Since it has already been held that Sh. Baha-ud-din was not the owner of the suit property (based solely on Khasra Ghirdawri) can he transfer a better title to the plaintiff than he himself had?
35. It is a settled law that no one can sell a better title than he himself has. A buyer's title would be subject to the same defect as the seller's if the seller's title is also defective. This rule simply implies that the buyer's title cannot be better than the seller's title. Same is enshrined in Section 27 of Sale of Goods Act. The legal maxim Nemo dat quod non habet also means "no one gives what he doesn't have". Thus, when Sh. Baha-ud-din had no title of the suit property he can't transfer a better title to the plaintiff (that too by way of unregistered agreement to sell or unregistered General power of attorney). The said principle also finds mention in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Kishore Kumar vs Vittal K. Patkar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999, which has been discussed above in great detail.
CAN AGREEMENT TO SELL/ GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (UNREGISTERED) CONFER ANY TITLE?
36. The entire case of the plaintiff rests on the premise that he is the owner of the suit property based on unregistered agreement to Digitally signed CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.28 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:27:12 +0530 sell and unregistered General power of attorney executed by Sh. Baha-ud-din in his favour. Now, this Court shall consider whether the said documents confer any title/ownership to the plaintiff or not.
37. In a landmark judgment in 2011 in Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt Ltd vs. State of Haryana 11 SCR 848, the Supreme Court of India ruled that power of attorney for sale of property is legally not valid. The ruling emphasized that a transaction involving the sale or transfer of property requires a sale deed, which must be registered under the Indian Registration Act, of 1908. This decision was primarily aimed at curbing fraudulent transactions and ensuring transparency in property dealings.
38. In Anuj Sharma vs Amit Sharma, neutral citation 2023:DHC:4589, Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to judgment of Suraj lamps (supra) and held that:
It is trite that transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a Deed of Conveyance/Sale Deed, duly stamped and registered as required by law and in the absence of this, no right, title or interest can be transferred in an immovable property. In Suraj Lamps (supra), the Supreme Court held that Power of Attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property and only authorizes the Attorney to do the acts specified therein. It Digitally signed by SAHIL CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL KHURMI Page No.29 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:27:17 +0530 was further held that 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 as valid mode of transfer of immovable property and Court will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances. The Supreme Court observed that these documents cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
(emphasis supplied)
39. In Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1016), it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
9. It was also submitted that there was a prohibition of registration of documents of transfer/conveyance with 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. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., which was of the year 2011, had prospective application and would not have any bearing on the title of the respondents CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally Page No.30 of 51 signed by SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:27:22 +0530 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 CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed by SAHIL Page No.31 of 51 KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:27:26 +0530 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 Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Others (ii). Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi (iii). M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr.
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.
(emphasis supplied)
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Page No.32 of 51
Digitally signed
by SAHIL
SAHIL KHURMI
KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02
16:27:31 +0530
40. The said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case, because the plaintiff is claiming his ownership/right/title/interest on the suit property on the basis of Agreement to sell, General Power of attorney etc executed in 2009 prior to Judgment in Suraj Lamp(supra) in 2011.
41. In Shakeel Ahmed (supra), the Supreme Court has reiterated that a title with respect to an immovable property cannot be transferred based on an unregistered agreement to Sell or a General Power of Attorney. The Supreme Court clarified that a title cannot be transferred of immovable properties through unregistered documents including Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney. Reference was made to Section(s) 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act by the Court, to affirm that without registration of the document no right, title or interest can be conferred with respect to an immovable property. It rejected the contention that the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) is only prospective. The Bench said that 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further noted that the law is well settled that no right, title, or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document (Sale deed).
Digitally signedCS SCJ No.601192/2016 by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.33 of 51 SAHIL Date: KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:27:36 +0530
42. In Ghyan Shyam vs Yogendra Rathi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479, (alternative citation MANU/SC/0642/2023), Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the settled law with regard to transfer of ownership of immovable property by way of sale deed only. The said case was also for suit for eviction along with recovery of mesne profits, just like the present case in hand. It was held that:
"12. It goes without saying that the power of attorney executed by the defendant- appellant is of no consequence as on the strength of said power of attorney, neither sale deed has been executed nor any action pursuant thereof has been taken by the power of attorney holder which may confer title upon the plaintiff- respondent. Non-execution of any document by the general power of attorney holder consequent to it renders the said general power of attorney useless.
14. In connection with the general power of attorney and the will so executed, the practice, if any, prevalent in any State or the High Court recognizing these documents to be documents of title or documents conferring right in any immovable property is in violation of the statutory law. Any such practice or tradition prevalent would not override the specific provisions of law which require execution of a document of title or transfer and its registration CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.34 of 51 by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:27:41 +0530 so as to confer right and title in an immovable property of over Rs.100/- in value. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Veer Bala Gulati Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. following the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court itself in the case of Asha M. Jain Vs. Canara Bank and Ors. holding that the agreement to sell with payment of full consideration and possession along with irrevocable power of attorney and other ancillary documents is a transaction to sell even though there may not be a sale deed, are of no help to the plaintiff-respondent inasmuch as the view taken by the Delhi High Court is not in consonance with the legal position which emanates from the plain reading of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In this regard, reference may be had to two other decisions of the Delhi High Court in Imtiaz Ali Vs. Nasim Ahmed and G. Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority which inter-alia observe that an agreement to sell or the power of attorney are not documents of transfer and as such the right title and interest of an immovable property do not stand transferred by mere execution of the same unless any document as contemplated under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is executed and is got registered under Section 17 of the Digitally signed CS SCJ No.601192/2016 by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.35 of 51 SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:27:46 +0530 Indian Registration Act, 1908. The decision of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. also deprecates the transfer of immovable property through sale agreement, general power of attorney and will instead of registered conveyance deed."
(emphasis laid)
43. Recently, a division bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Veeneta (since deceased) vs Jyoti Gupta FAO(OS) 143/2023 dated 22.05.2024 has relied upon the aforesaid judgments and has declined to accept the GPA sales as valid. Following observations are relevant:
"Further, in law, the chain of the alleged unregistered customary documents dated 04th November, 1999, for property bearing no. D-114, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi, the alleged unregistered customary documents dated 12th January, 2000, for property bearing no. D-136, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi, and the alleged unregistered customary documents dated 09th August, 1999, with respect to property bearing house no. 1601, Outram Lane, in the absence of stamping and registration cannot confer any right, title or interest in an immovable property in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('Act of 1882'). The said CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.36 of 51 by SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:27:50 +0530 documents are unregistered and inadequately stamped and are, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, no right, title or interest has enured in favour of late Ms. Vaneeta Gupta in the subject properties on the basis of the said documents, even assuming the same were genuine".
(emphasis supplied)
44. In the present case, even the agreement to sell and GPA executed in favour of the plaintiff is not registered, but only notarized. Thus, as held aforementioned in catena of judgments, no title can be transferred on the basis of unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. Hence, the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property based on unregistered agreement to sell and unregistered general power of attorney. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed(supra) even said to the extent that 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 plaintiff would have acquired title over the property in question. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his title and therefore, the case of plaintiff doesn't stand on its own legs. Thus issue No.6,7 & 8 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
45. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention that Learned Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2016, impounded the documents of the plaintiff namely agreement to sell/GPA under Section 33 of the Stamps Act. The said order was challenged by the CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.37 of 51 by SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:27:55 +0530 plaintiff before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 16.09.2019 that, "In light of the above clauses and the legal position laid down in Om Prakash (supra) issues of ownership would require to be determined by the Trial Court and adjudicated especially issues no. 1,6 and 7. Upon the Trial Court coming to the conclusion, if any, that ownership and possession was transferred to the Plaintiff, the entire stamp duty as directed in the impugned order would be liable to be paid by the Plaintiff at that stage."
46. Since, Issue no. 6, 7 and 8 have been decided against the plaintiff, there is no requirement by the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty.
1. Whether the defendant is owner of property bearing Plot No.540/4, measuring 15 sq yards situated in Khasra No.459-60, Patti Jahanuma, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi by way of adverse possession? OPD
47. The defendant in his written statement has taken up a defence that he is the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession as he is in actual constructive possession of the suit property and has been exerting rights as owner of the same for the last more than five decades without any protest or demur from the real owner of the suit property and thus perfected his title by adverse possession.
48. Before adverting to the merits of the defence taken by defendant, it is apposite to mention the law with regard to adverse Digitally signed CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Page No.38 of 51 by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:28:00 +0530 possession.
49. In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Baldwin Babusaheb Pati, AIR 1995 SC 895 Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case of adverse possession opined that, adverse possession means a hostile assertion i.e a possession which is express or implied and with continuity of title of the true owner. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed.
50. In Rama Kanta Jain v. M.S.Jain, AIR 1999 Delhi 281, it was held that, a party who claims title by adverse possession to a property belonging to someone else, must show the following:
(i) He has been in occupation of the disputed property for more than 12 years without interruption
(ii) his possession was to the exclusion of all the persons; a
(iii) the said possession must be open and hostile to the true owne
(iv) the other classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be "nec vi nec clam nec precario" i.e for the perfection of title and possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent
51. In Govindammal V. R. Perumal Chettiar & Ors., 2006(11) SCALE 452, it was held:
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.39 of 51 by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:28:04 +0530 "....In order to oust by way of adverse possession, one has to lead definite evidence to show that to the hostile interest of the party that a person is holding possession and how that can be proved will depend on facts of each case...."
52. In T.Anjanappa and Others Vs. Somalingappa and Another, (2006) 7 SCC 570, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"12. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them. The principle of law is firmly established that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and in aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when Digitally signed by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Date:KHURMI 2025.06.02 Page No.40 of 51
16:28:15 +0530 that person in denial of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of his property.".
53. In Shri Ramesh Ahuja & Anr. vs Shri Ram Nath Jain AIR 2009 1852 (DEL), it was held that:
It is settled law that once a tenant always a tenant. Succession of tenancy rights is governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and on the demise of a tenant tenancy rights are inherited by his spouse, son or daughter provided they were living with the deceased on the date of his death, as laid down in sub Sec. (L) of Section 2 of the Act.
(emphasis supplied)
54. In Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs vs. Sudesh Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that tenants cannot claim claim adverse possession against their landlords, since their possession is permissive in nature. It was further observed that, "The defendant respondents were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against the then landlords and not adverse. There was no question of them claiming any adverse possession from 1944."
55. In Mallavva and anr. Vs Kalsammanavara Kalamma (since dead) by legal heirs & ors. Civil appeal no. 14803 OF 2024 decided on 20.12.2024, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed by SAHIL Page No.41 of 51 KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:28:20 +0530 "33. This Court in Government of Kerala & Anr. v. Joseph & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 961 has held as under:
35. Mere possession over a property for a long period of time does not grant the right of adverse possession on its own; (a) In Gaya Prasad Dikshit v. Dr. Nirmal Chander (two-
Judge Bench)(1984) 2 SCC 286, this court observed- "1... It is not merely unauthorised possession on termination of his licence that enables the licensee to claim title by adverse possession but there must be some overt act on the part of the licensee to show that he is claiming adverse title. It is possible that the licensor may not file an action for the purpose of recovering possession of the premises from the licensee after terminating his licence but that by itself cannot enable the licensee to claim title by adverse possession. There must be some overt act on the part of the licensee indicating assertion of hostile title. Mere continuance of unauthorised possession even for a period of more than 12 years is not enough."
(emphasis supplied)
56. In Neelam Gupta vs Rajendra Kumar Gupta 2024 IN SC 769, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
Digitally signed by SAHILCS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL KHURMI Page No.42 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:28:25 +0530
41. In the decision in Brij Narayan Shukla (D) through LRs. v. Sudesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar (D) through LRs. and Ors., this Court while considering the question whether tenants of original owner could claim adverse possession against transferee of land lord held that tenants or lessees could not claim adverse possession against their landlord/lessor, as the nature of their possession is permissive in nature.
45. Upon considering the evidence on the part of the appellants herein (the defendants), we have no hesitation to hold that the requirements to co-exist to constitute adverse possession are not established by them.
57. In M/S Kamakshi Builders vs M/S Ambedkar Educational Society & Ors on 18 May, 2007 (12) SCC 27, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:
"A tenant cannot claim adverse possession while still recognized as a tenant. Adverse possession can only be claimed once the tenancy is terminated, at which point the tenant''s possession may become adverse to that of the landlord."
58. The upshot of the above discussion is a person who claims Digitally signed CS SCJ No.601192/2016 by SAHIL Page No.43 of 51 SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:28:30 +0530 adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. In the present case, the defendant has not lead evidence to prove his hostile possession. It is also imperative to note that neither any Defence Evidence by lead by the defendant nor the claim of owner by adverse possession was set up by the defendant in a counter claim. The defendant has not even mentioned as to when his possession became adverse or hostile to the owner of the property. The defendant has vaguely mentioned that he is exerting rights as owner of the suit property for the last more than five decades. No clear and unequivocal evidence was ever lead by the defendant to prove his ownership by way of adverse possession.
59. It is also worth mentioning that admittedly, it is the case of the defendant that he was a tenant to Sh. Sanauddin and paid rent to him through his rent collector Sh. Faridi Ahmed. That Sh. Sanauddin died issueless and Sh. Faridi Ahmed can't claim any right, title or interest in the estate of late Sh. Sanauddin. It has been held in catena of judgments (as aforementioned) that tenants cannot claim claim adverse possession against their landlords, since their possession is permissive in nature. Thus, for this reason also, the defendant can't claim ownership by adverse possession.
60. Lastly, it is settled law (as aforementioned in several judgements of superior Courts) that there must be some overt act on the part of the licensee indicating assertion of hostile title. Mere continuance of unauthorised possession even for a period of more than 12 years is not enough. It is not merely unauthorised CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.44 of 51 by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:28:35 +0530 possession on termination of license that enables the licensee to claim title by adverse possession but there must be some overt act on the part of the licensee to show that he is claiming adverse title. In the present case, there has been no overt act by the defendant to show that he is claiming adverse title. Even no cogent and clinching evidence has been lead by the defendant to prove on record when he stopped paying rent to the landlord through his rent collector and when his possession became adverse.
61. For the reasons aforementioned, the present issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2 Whether this Court lacks pecuniary as well as the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? OPD
62. It is pertinent to mention that no such preliminary objection as to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction was ever taken by the defendant in the written statement. According, the present issue is strike out being wrongly framed and superfluous under Order XIV Rule 5(2) CPC.
ISSUE NO. 3 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected on the ground that there is no cause of action against the defendant? OPD
63. The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant. Since Issue no. 6, 7 and 8 have been decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant, accordingly the present issue is decided in favour CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.45 of 51 by SAHIL KHURMI SAHIL Date:
KHURMI 2025.06.02 16:28:39 +0530 of the defendant and against the plaintiff as in absence of any right, title or interest of the plaintiff on the suit property, there is no cause of action with the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 4 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963? OPD
64. The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant. Neither any evidence has been led by the defendant nor any explanation has been furnished by the defendant. Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for relief of Declaration. However, in the present case, the plaintiff has not even claimed the relief of declaration. Accordingly, the present issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 5 Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
65. The defendant has stated in preliminary objection in the written statement that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and the court fees payable is on the market value of the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.
66. On the other hand, it is the case of the plaintiff that the father in law of the defendant was tenant of the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff for monthly rent of Rs.5/- and thus, the plaintiff has CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Digitally signed Page No.46 of 51 by SAHIL SAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:28:44 +0530 valued the suit on the basis of annual market rent of Rs.60/-.
67. The case of the plaintiff is based on the premise that her predecessor in interest (original landlord Sh. Sanauddin) was landlord of the predecessor in interest (Father in law) of the defendant. Therefore, the valuation for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction on the annual rent has been correctly mentioned by the plaintiff qua the relief of possession in accordance with Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act. Accordingly, the present issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
68. After exhaustive aforesaid discussion, this Court has come to following irresistible conclusions that:
Sh. Baha-ud-din had no right, title or interest in the suit property as held by Hon'ble Court of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, Civil Judge in suit no. 478 of 1996 in case titled as Mohan Singh vs Baha-ud-din and Ors. vide judgment dated 24.02.2001 Sh. Baha-ud-din had no right, title or interest in the suit property based on mere entry in the revenue record (Khasra Girdawari) Since Baha-ud-din had no right, title or interest in the suit property, he could not transfer a better title to the plaintiff than he himself had.
Digitally
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 signed by
SAHIL Page No.47 of 51
SAHIL KHURMI
KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02
16:28:48
+0530
The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property on the basis
of unregistered documents i.e., GPA (General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell) executed by Sh. Baha-ud-din in her favor.
69. In the present case, even though the defendant has not been able to prove his defence of adverse possession, the plaintiff can't be held to be owner of the suit property straightaway. A decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendants have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the suit property. The defendant, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save his possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess him has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession. The same has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smriti Debbarma (D) vs Prabha Ranjan Debbarma 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19, where it was observed that:
"The defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff has established a better title and rights over the Schedule 'A' property. A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner. A decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendants have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the Schedule 'A' property.Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.48 of 51 KHURMI Date: 2025.06.02 16:28:53 +0530
"This is mandated in terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden on proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not on the party which is denying it. This rule may not be universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail. Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. The plaintiff could have succeeded in respect of the Schedule 'A' property if she had discharged the burden to prove the title to the Schedule 'A' property which squarely falls on her. This would be the true effect of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act.
(emphasis supplied) Digitally signed by SAHIL CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL KHURMI Page No.49 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:28:59 +0530
70. In Smriti Debbarma (supra), The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the burden of proof to establish a title lies upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief. The Apex Court bench agreed with the finding that the plaintiff on the basis of evidence and documents placed on record has not been able to discharge the burden of proof to establish legal ownership and title with respect to the subject property. The Supreme Court observed that a decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff merely because defendants were not able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the property. Weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit.
71. Thus, it is a settled law that the plaintiff is required to prove his case through clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the defendant''s failure to present a defence or evidence to succeed in his claim. It has been held in umpteen judgments that the plaintiff must establish his right, title, and interest over the property or subject matter in question. The absence of evidence from the defendant does not relieve the plaintiff of his obligation to prove his case. If the plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims, the suit is likely to be dismissed, regardless of the defendant''s lack of participation or evidence
72. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership on the suit property. The plaintiff has not been able to discharge the burden of proof to establish legal ownership and title Digitally signed CS SCJ No.601192/2016 SAHIL by SAHIL KHURMI Page No.50 of 51 KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:29:04 +0530 with respect to the subject property. The Weakness of the defence of the defendant (claim by adverse possession) cannot be a justification to decree the suit. The suit of the plaintiff doesn't stand on its own legs.
RELIEF
73. For the detailed reasons aforementioned, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
74. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
75. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today on 02.06.2025.
Digitally signed by SAHILSAHIL KHURMI KHURMI Date:
2025.06.02 16:29:09 +0530 (SAHIL KHURMI) Civil Judge-1, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ No.601192/2016 Page No.51 of 51