The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of registered documents, such as General Power of Attorney, in proving ownership of property, and the impact of contradictory statements on the credibility of a party's claim.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 7th November, 2014, passed by the Trial Court, by which the Plaintiff’s suit for possession and injunction has been decreed in the following terms :

“20. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff has proved his case and therefore, he is entitled for the following relief:

(i) Decree of permanent/mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 and 2 and the defendant's attorneys, representative, agents etc. are restrained from selling, transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property bearing E-21/255 (E-255/21)measuring 74 Sq. Yards, Amar Colony, Harijan Basti, Shakti Garden, Delhi as shown in red color with the site plan attached with the plaint Ex. PW5/2 except without due process of law.

(ii) The decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants regarding ownership as prayed in the suit.

(iii) The decree of possession is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.”

2. The Trial Court granted a mandatory injunction and possession in respect of the suit property being E-21/255, measuring 74 sq. yds., Amar Colony, Harijan Basti, Shakti Garden, Delhi.

3. The suit was filed by Plaintiff - Sh. Radhey Shyam against his wife Smt. Ram Rati Devi - Defendant No.1, her brother Sh. Bal Kishan - Defendant No.2, BSES - Defendant No.3 and the Sub-Registrar, Seelam Pur - Defendant No.4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he and his wife have been divorced as per decree dated 3rd May, 2008. The couple have a daughter, Smt. Sonia. On the strength of the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipts and Will dated 17th November, 2000 executed by Smt. Naseem Bano in his favour, he claims ownership on the suit property. The GPA is a registered document No. 59947, Volume No. 6945, Book No.4, on pages 10 to 12 dated 17th November, 2000 registered with the defendant No.4/Sub Registrar, Seelampur, Delhi. The title to the property is traced back to another set of documents dated 1st June, 1995 from one Sh. Rakesh Kumar to Smt. Naseem Bano.

4. Plaintiff claims to have been in possession of the suit property until he was dispossessed in 2004. Disputes arose between him and his wife. There was an enormous disquiet in the family. Various complaints and counter complaints were filed with the Police. Plaintiff claims that in these circumstances, in 2004, his wife along with her brother forcibly removed him from the suit property. It is stated that he had filed a complaint with the Police when he was dispossessed. The Plaintiff further submits that he has executed a registered Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of the daughter, Smt. Sonia who is now being educated by him and is also under his care and custody.

5. The Defendant in her written statement claimed that the Plaintiff has not established title and ownership to the suit property. It is further stated that she is entitled to live in the suit property as she has a share in the same, being the wife of the Plaintiff. She does not dispute that the daughter is under the care and custody of the Plaintiff. She further pleads that she is the owner of the property by virtue of a set of documents allegedly executed by Smt. Naseem Bano in her favour dated 2nd February, 2009. None of the documents i.e., GPA, the possession letter, agreement to sell, etc. are registered in favour of the Defendant. However, it is also claimed by her that she has obtained electricity connection in her name issued by the BSES and that shows that she is in possession of the property.

6. Initially, on 24th September, 2010, Defendants were directed to maintain status quo. On 21st October, 2010, the following issues were struck in the suit:

“1. Whether the defendant no.1 is the joint owner of the suit property? OPD1

2. Whether the defe