Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 415
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
Moortie Devi & Others
Versus
Sat Prakash
RFA(OS) 105 of 1998
Decided On : 10-02-2012
For the Appellants:Lal Singh Thakur, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Akshay Makhija, Advocate.
The importance of documentary evidence in establishing title and possession in property disputes.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 27, Limitation Act, Section 27] - The court discussed the plaintiff's acquisition of title through registered sale deeds, mutation in municipal records, and permission to construct on the plot. The defendant's claim of adverse possession was refuted due to lack of evidence and contradictory statements. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and upheld the plaintiff's title to the land.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought declaration that a sale deed executed by his father in favor of the defendant was null and void, and claimed possession and mesne profits for unauthorized possession by the defendant. The defendant pleaded title by adverse possession and payment of property tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff had established title to the property through registered sale deeds and possession, while refuting the defendant's claim of adverse possession due to lack of evidence.
Issues: Ownership of the property, validity of the sale deed, adverse possession, limitation, and entitlement to damages/mesne profits.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's documentary evidence of title and possession prevailed over the defendant's unsupported claim of adverse possession. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and upheld the plaintiff's title to the land.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of fact by the lower court in favor of the plaintiff.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. We shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the suit. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. Thus, the expression plaintiff used by us hereinafter would be referring to the respondent and the expression defendant would be referring to the appellants.
2. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that the sale deed dated July 20, 1983 executed by his father in favour of the defendant was null and void; decree for possession in respect of the property conveyed being plot no.13, Krishan Nagar, admeasuring 66.23 sq. yds. was prayed for and, lastly mesne profits against the defendant was sought in respect of the unauthorized possession of the defendant.
3. As per the plaint, the plaintiff stated that he acquired title to the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated April, 29, 1955 executed by the owner Sh.Om Prakash Goela, who in turn had acquired title to the plot by virtue of a registered sale deed executed by the developer of the colony i.e. DLF Company in his favour which was registered on March 4, 1950. Claiming to have obtained mutation in his name in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and that in the year 1968 he had sought for and obtained a permission to construct on the plot and had thereafter constructed a building thereon for which plaintiff claimed to have paid the municipal taxes, it was asserted that being in Government service the plaintiff was serving outside Delhi and taking advantage of his absence the defendant took illegal possession of the plot in July 1983 after getting executed from the father of the plaintiff a sale deed in his favour on July 20, 1983. It was asserted that the father of the plaintiff could not convey title as he was not the owner of the property nor was he empowered by the plaintiff to sell the same. It was pleaded that due to old age, being 85 years old in the year 1983, due to weak mind, the father of the plaintiff was liable to be easily influenced and taking advantage of the said fact the defendant manipulated the father of the plaintiff.
4. The defendant pleaded title by adverse possession pleading that since June 20, 1958 he was in exclusive physical possession of the property to the knowledge of the plaintiff when it was a vacant land and that he was paying the property tax after the property was mutated in his name and that he was carrying on business from the property in the name and style “Shri Ganesh Cement Jali Works”. With respect to the sale deed dated July 20, 1983 which was executed by the father of the plaintiff in his name, he pleaded, in para 12 of the written statement as under:-
“In fact since the father of the plaintiff claiming himself to be the owner of the said plot of land, desired the defendant to pay him some compensation considering his old age for the ownership rights in the said plot, even though he was not entitled to anything because the defendant has already become the owner of the said plot of land on account of adverse possession. The defendant out of compassion and respect for the old man agreed to pay him a sum of `10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) in consideration of which the aforesaid father of the plaintiff desired to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant and consequently Shri Ram Chhiber, the father of the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed on 20.7.1983 in favour of the defendant for consideration of `10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) which was paid to him before the Sub-Registrar at Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051 at the time of registration”.
5. Reiterating the case pleaded in the plaint and denying the stand pleaded in the written statement, replication was filed, and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute?
2. In case issue No.1 is proved, was Shri Shree Ram Chibber competent to effect sale of this prope
