The main legal point established in the judgment is that unregistered documents such as General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will cannot confer ownership or title to immovable property, only possessory rights, and the need for immovable property to be transferred through a registered deed of conveyance as per the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 17914/2021 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 17913/2021 (for stay) in RSA 55/2007 and Review Petition 256/2019

3. The present application is for stay and suspension of the operation of judgment dated 13th March, 2015 passed in RSA 55/2007 titled Rajesh Kumar Pandey v. Shanti Devi & Anr.

4. The ground on which suspension is sought is that the Executing Court has passed an order on 5th April, 2021 that unless and until there is a stay on the order granted by this Court, the Court would proceed as per law. Thus, there is a likelihood of the suit property, being property No. 223/22-E, Gali No. 8, Railway Colony, Mandawali, Delhi - 110092 (hereinafter, "suit property"), being either disposed of, partitioned or sold as per the final judgment dated 13 th March, 2015.

5. The Respondent is duly represented before the Court. The next date before the Executing Court is stated to be 16th June, 2021. Considering that the decree which was originally passed was dated 25th November, 2005 and the judgment passed by this Court, of which review is sought, is dated 13th March, 2015, instead of hearing the application for stay, this Court proceeded to hear the review petition itself on merits.

6. The brief background to this litigation is that Mr. Jagdish Prashad Pandey, who was the owner of the suit property, had two sons - Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Mr. Ram Milan Pandey. Mr. Jagdish Prashad Pandey passed away in 1996. Following his death, a suit for partition and permanent injunction was filed by the Plaintiff - Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey against his brother, Mr. Ram Milan Pandey and his wife, Mrs. Shanti Devi. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 25th November, 2005, passed a decree for partition in the following terms:

"RELIEF:-

In the light of aforesaid discussion and my findings given on the aforesaid issues, it is held that the plaintiff has successfully proved that he is entitled for share in the property bearing No. 230/22-E, Gali No.8, Railway Colony, Mandawali, Delhi-92. That a decree of permanent injunction is also hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 and 2 restraining thereby both the defendants from selling and creating any third party interest in the suit property and both the defendants, their associates and representatives shall also not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property.

That Sh. D.K. Singh Advocate, address Seat No.43, KKD Court, First Floor, Delhi, Mobile No. 9811108641 is hereby appointed as Local Commissioner to divide the aforesaid property in two equal shares by metes and bounds and records the objection if any, in this regard. The fees of the Ld. Local Commission if Rs.3,000/- which shall be paid by the plaintiff. Thereafter, Ld. Local Commissioner shall file his report within the 15 days from the receipt of his fees as Local Commissioner.

Preliminary decree be drawn accordingly."

7. The reasoning given by the Trial Court was that Defendant No.2 i.e., Ms. Shanti Devi - the daughter-in-law, was not able to prove any right or title in the suit property. Moreover, the documents which were the basis of the claim of Defendant No.2 i.e., the General Power of Attorney, Will etc., were found to be doubtful and accordingly, the Trial Court held that there would be no ownership recognised in favour of Defendant No.2.

8. This judgment was carried in appeal by the Appellant. The Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 18th November, 2006, modified the order of the Trial Court in the following terms:

"8. It should be noted that even though defendant has set up the defense that Jagdish Parsad had sold 42 sq yards of land to defendant No 2 on the basis of agreement to sell, will, power of attorney and receipt, nevertheless that plaintiff had not sought any relief regarding cancellation of the documents nor has claimed any declarat