The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a registered instrument for a valid gift of immovable property, as per Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. No.29414/2018(exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No.29413/2018(for condonation of delay)

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 75 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No.589/2018 and C.M. No.29412/2018(stay)

3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.1.2018 by which trial court has decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the mother/respondent/plaintiff/Smt. Uma Singh. Smt. Uma Singh is the mother of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1. Appellant no.2/defendant no.2 is the husband of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 ie appellants/defendants are wife and husband.

4. The facts of the case are that the subject suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff pleading ownership of the residential property bearing no.C-379-A, Palam Extension, Amberhai Road, Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi-45 on a plot admeasuring 115 sq yds. Respondent/plaintiff pleaded that she had purchased the suit property from the earlier owner Sh. Ranbir Singh Malik by means of usual set of documents of Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Will etc dated 31.10.1988 (Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/13). The earlier title documents in favour of Sh. Ranbir Singh were filed and proved as Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/8 and which are also the same set of documents being Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Will etc. The original allottee of the suit property was Mr. Kewal and who executed the transfer documents of the suit property in favour of Sh. Ranbir Singh Malik on 12.9.1988 being the documents Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/8. In favour of Mr. Kewal, ownership of the suit property was in terms of the allotment letter-cum-receipt of the Gram Panchayat dated 31.8.1984/Ex.PW1/3 and the Praman Patra dated 31.8.1984 of the Gram Panchayat /Ex.PW1/2. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that on the request of the appellants/defendants, in July, 1997 they were allowed to stay in the suit property as the respondent’s/plaintiff’s husband in April, 1995 went to Navi Mumbai to take possession of the newly completed flat of the Army Welfare Housing Organization which was booked by the husband of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff thereafter in August, 1995 joined her husband at Navi Mumbai. At the time of going to Navi Mumbai the suit property was handed over for being taken care of by respondent/plaintiff's husband’s younger brother Sh. Devender Singh, and thereafter in July, 1997 appellants/defendants were allowed to live in the suit property at the request of the appellants w.e.f 5.8.1997. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that her daughter/appellant no.1/defendant no.1 became very rude with her and on the respondent/plaintiff visiting the suit property on 12.5.2004, it was found that the locks which the respondent/plaintiff had put in the room which contained her belongings were broken by the appellants/defendants. The appellants/defendants misbehaved with the respondent/plaintiff. Since the appellants/defendants failed to vacate the suit property, the respondent/plaintiff served a Legal Notice dated 31.3.2006 terminating the licence (gratuitous) of the appellants/defendants, and thereafter filed the subject suit for possession and mesne profits.

5. The appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. It was pleaded by the appellants/defendants that they have been living in the suit property for 14 years and hence they have become owners by adverse possession. It was also pleaded by the appellants/defendants that under a Family Settlement of the year 1988-89, it was agreed that the suit property would be given to the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 at the time of her marriage and consequently this suit property came to be owned by the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 as being given as