Defendants entitled to benefit of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act due to their exclusive possession of the property for several years, despite Plaintiff's failure to establish clear title.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. Plaintiff-Shri Charan Singh filed the present suit for possession and permanent injunction against his son Sh. Satynarain - Defendant No.1 and his daughter-in-law, Smt. Surekha - Defendant No.2. Plaintiff claimed ownership of plot no.4, out of Khasra no.12/22, situated in Revenue Estate of Village Kakrola Extn, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043, ad measuring 125 Sq. Yards (hereinafter referred as ‘suit property’). The Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the said property from the sons of Sh. Chotu Ram who was the original allottee of the said plot on 20th July, 1993 vide GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt and documents issued by the gram panchayat. The Plaintiff claimed that he retired from the DTC as a driver and thereafter in 1995-96, started his business with his son, Defendant No.1- Sh. Satynarian. The business was being jointly conducted till 2003-04 from the suit property. Thereafter his health did not permit him to continue the business and Defendant No.1 continued the same. Around 2006-07, he came to know that the Defendant has discontinued the business and had let out the suit property consisting of five rooms, toilet and bathroom on the Ground Floor and an identical accommodation on the First Floor of the property. In 2012, he called upon the Defendant to vacate the suit property which he refused and thus the Plaintiff filed the present suit for possession seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) to pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant from entering into and creating any third party interest in the suit premises i.e. Plot No.4, out of Khasra No.12/22, situated in Revenue Estate of Village Kakrola, Delhi, abadi known as Gram Sabha Kakrola Extn, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043, admeasuring 125 Sq. Yards, more clearly shown in red colour in the site plan annexed (supra);

(b) to pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant of the suit premises i.e. Plot No. 4, out of Khasra No.12/22, situated in Revenue Estate of Village Kakrola, Delhi, abadi known as Gram Sabha Kakrola Extn, Najafgarh, New Delhi- 110043, admeasuring 125 Sq. Yards, more clearly shown in red colour in the site plan annexed (supra); (c) to allow cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;.”

2. Initially, only the son was impleaded as the sole Defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte due to non appearance. Vide order dated 30th October, 2012, the Defendant’s application Under Order IX Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed and the order proceeding ex-parte was set aside. The Defendant filed his written statement and he pleaded that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the property in question. He also pleaded that the suit property was purchased from the compensation given to his grandfather i.e. Plaintiff’s father after the acquisition of his ancestral agricultural land by Land Acquisition Act by LAC Kapashera bearing award no.1/93-94. He pleaded that his grandfather- Sh. Puran Chand had received Rs.40 lakhs as compensation out of which he had paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the Defendant. This amount was handed over to the Plaintiff from which the suit property was also purchased. The Defendant claimed that he has always been in exclusive ownership and possession of the suit property. It was also pleaded that he was working with his father in the suit property in the export garments business and the Plaintiff being the father, the business was conducted in the name of the father. On 21st January, 2013, the Trial Court granted an interim injunction with the direction to the parties that no third-party rights in respect of the suit property would be created till the disposal of the suit. On the said date, the following issues were framed:

(i) Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, if so, its effect? OPD.

(ii) Whether the plainti