Important Point – Photocopies of unregistered Special Power of Attorney with many columns left blank and photocopy of receipt cannot confer any right or title on any of parties.

1. This RSA under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant (defendant in Civil Suit No.411/06/02) impugning the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 26th May, 2014 vide which the judgment passed by learned Trial Court has been reversed.

2. The learned Trial Court, vide common judgment dated 23rd March, 2011, disposed of two civil suits i.e. Civil Suit No.410/06/02 filed by Sh.Pappi (appellant herein) and Civil Suit no.411/06/02 filed by Sh.Ramesh Kumar (respondent herein) and both the suit were dismissed.

3. Feeling aggrieved, RCA No.7/2014 was preferred only by Sh.Ramesh Kumar. Vide judgment dated 26th May, 2014 RCA No.7/2014 has been allowed by the First Appellate Court as a result thereof, the Civil Suit No.411/2006 has been decreed.

4. Now, by filing this Regular Second Appeal, the judgment of the First Appellate Court passed in RCA No.7/2014 is being challenged by Sh.Pappi (defendant in Civil Suit No.411/06/02).

5. The parties to this litigation are real brothers and both are claiming ownership rights in respect of the property No.B-245, Sultanpuri, Delhi. Undisputedly both are in possession i.e. the appellant/defendant is in possession of the first floor of the said property and the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of ground floor of the said property. The Civil Suit No.411/06/02 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff Sh.Ramesh Kumar for seeking possession of the first floor from his brother Sh.Pappi claiming himself to be owner of the said property and status of his brother to be that of a licensee.

6. On 13th November, 2014, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, while admitting the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated:

Whether the suit for possession can be decreed on the basis of unregistered, undated and photocopies of the documents?

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the documents on the basis of which respondent/plaintiff was claiming his title as owner and that of the appellant/defendant to be of licensee, are not admissible in evidence. The documents are photocopies of unregistered documents and the original documents in favour of Ramesh Kumar were never produced before the learned Trial court. The original documents Ex.PW1/E (Colly.) are in respect of sale transaction between Sh.Subhash Chand and Sh.Lal Singh. It has been further submitted that the suit property was purchased by selling another joint family property and both the parties have been residing in the suit property in their independent capacity as co-owner. The status of the appellant/defendant since beginning was that of a co-owner and this fact has been duly proved from the testimony of their other two brothers (PW-2 and PW-3) who have corroborated the version of the appellant/defendant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in these facts learned First Appellate Court could not have passed a decree for possession against the appellant/defendant on the basis of reasoning that the respondent/plaintiff had a better title in comparison to the appellant/defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the judgment of the First Appellate Court as there was no evidence to prove either the better title or relationship between the parties to be that of an owner and licensee.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned First Appellate Court corrected the illegality committed by learned Trial Court while dismissing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff by ignoring the title documents in his favour. It has been contended that the suit No.410/2006 filed by the appellant/defendant against his brother, respondent herein, seeking declaration to the effect that he is a co-owner, was dismissed. He has not challenged the dismissal of his suit. Thus, once there is a finding by the civil Court that appellant is not co-owner of the suit property, t