Law Respects Possessory Rights Over Immovable Property Even In Absence Of Valid Title: Delhi High Court

Single bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the plaintiff is only required to establish a better right to remain in possession of the suit property as compared to the right of the defendant.

"A suit which does not claim titular rights and merely claims a right to continue in possession without possession being disturbed save and except in accordance with law, is not required to make out a case of title. The law respects possessory rights over immoveable property, even in the absence of valid title."

It added, "A person in settled possession of immoveable property is entitled under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, to continue in such possession, without being dispossessed save and except in accordance with law."

The Court was dealing with a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, preferred against decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellants from trespassing in the suit property or from forcibly dispossessing the respondent therefrom without following due process of law.

The appellants were defendants in the original suit preferred by the Respondent herein, claiming to be in peaceful possession of the suit property. It was alleged that appellants broke the locks on the suit property and effected forcible ingress.

The Respondent also placed on record electricity bills with respect to the suit property, which were in his name.

Thus, the Court held that the Respondent had tendered sufficient evidence to establish possession and that in a suit claiming possession simplicitor, the question of title is not relevant.

Significantly, the Appellants sought to aver that the suit property was their ancestral property and that the title documents, on which the respondent placed reliance, were forged and fabricated.

However, the Court noted that barring bald assertions in the written statement, no evidence had been led by the petitioners to make out the case propounded above. Not a single document was filed in support of the assertions, and no oral evidence was led before the Courts below.

"They (appellants) appear to have been harbouring a misconception, throughout, that mere allegations in a written statement were sufficient to dispute the case set up by the respondent, and that no responsibility, thereafter, lay on the petitioners (appellants) to support the allegations with evidence," Court remarked.

Even the cross examination of the respondent by the Appellants did not elicit any material on the basis of which the title documents of the respondent, or the possession of the respondent over the suit property could be regarded as having been rendered vulnerable.

The appellants also sought to contend that no title could pass to the Respondent under a GPA, Will, agreement to sell and receipt.

The Court however relied on Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana to uphold that, even if title could not pass under Agreement to Sell, GPA and Will, the said documents, if executed validly/properly, did convey certain rights over the property in question, under Section 53A4 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1883.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Saleem & Ors. v. Wahid Malik

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 953