Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Syed Aijaz Hussain - Appellant
Versus
Islahuddin Khan & Ors - Respondent
F.A.O. No. 124 of 2021; C.M. Appl No. 12523 of 2021, 12524 of 2021
Decided On : 26-03-2021
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC - Property Dispute - Noor Nagar, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi - [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656] - The court discussed the appellant's claim of possession and ownership based on unregistered documents and the respondent's evidence of physical possession, refuting the appellant's claim. The court highlighted the requirement for registered title documents and the need to establish uninterrupted possession. The court found no merit in the appellant's case and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought a restraint on respondents from construction activity or changing the structure of the suit premises. The appellant claimed ownership and possession of the property, while the respondent refuted the claim, presenting evidence of physical possession by their family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish uninterrupted possession and ownership based on unregistered documents, while the respondent presented evidence refuting the appellant's claim. The court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
Issues: Dispute over possession and ownership of the property, validity of unregistered documents, and evidence of physical possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement for registered title documents, the need to establish uninterrupted possession, and the importance of evidence refuting the claim of possession and ownership.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of the parties.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - Appellant impugns order dated 17.03.2021 whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the appellant seeking a restraint on respondents from carrying out any construction activity or changing the structure of the suit premises i.e. property No.38 admeasuring 84 sq.yards L Type situated at Noor Nagar, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi and further from transferring, alienating or parting with possession or creating third party interest in the said property during the pendency of the suit has been dismissed.
2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed the subject suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction on 24.02.2021 seeking a declaration, declaring the General Power of Attorney, Agreement Affidavit all dated 17.05.1967 to be null and void having no relationship with the suit property No.38, Khasra No.176 admeasuring 84 sq.yards L Type, Noor Nagar, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi and further seeking a decree of possession in favour of the appellant and a mandatory injunction to remove the illegal and unauthorised construction raised over the subject property.
3. The case set up by the appellant is that one Najamuddin Khan was the lawful and exclusive owner of the built up property and had purchased and occupied the same before 1970.
4. It is contended in the plaint that Najamuddin Khan was a Government employee in Uttar Pradesh and due to his transfer had to stay in different parts of Uttar Pradesh along with his family members. However, on holidays used to come to Delhi and stay in the suit property.
5. It is averred in the plaint that approximately 25-30 years back said Najamuddin Khan shifted to Agra with his family and started residing over there, however, he kept on visiting the property as and when he availed suitable opportunities.
6. It is alleged that for some time Qamaruddin (father of respondent No.1) was staying as a licensee in the suit property with his family members and subsequently shifted to Zakir Nagar, Okhla along with his family.
7. It is alleged that Qamaruddin, with the permission of Najamuddin his elder brother, had let out the suit property and used to pay rent the rent received to the erstwhile owner (Najamuddin). It is alleged that after the demise of Qamaruddin his son i.e. respondent No.1 started taking care of the suit property and used to collect rent from the tenants and pay to Najamuddin.
8. It is alleged in the plaint that for the last 3-4 years respondent No.1 stopped paying the rent to Najamuddin though he was regularly collecting it from the tenants.
9. It is alleged that in March-April, 2020 due to Corona pandemic the tenants vacated the property and appellant purchased the suit property on 15.06.2020 by way of execution of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Possession Letter and receipt and appellant was put in lawful possession of the said property.
10. It is alleged that having become the lawful and exclusive owner of the property, appellant put his materials and belongings in the suit property.
11. It is further alleged in the plaint that in the first week of September, 2020 appellant had gone to his native place in Meerut and when he returned on 06.09.2020 he was shocked to notice that labourers were demolishing the property and on enquiry he learnt that respondent was raising construction of the property.
12. Appellant thereafter filed a suit for injunction (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Suit) . It is alleged that in the said suit respondent claimed ownership based on documents executed on 17.05.1967. It is alleged that the documents are forged and fabricated as the documents relate to Khasra No.174 whereas the subject property is situated in Khasra No.176.
13. It is alleged that by order dated 23.12.2020 the application for injunction filed in the 1 st suit was dismissed by the Trial Court against which an appeal was filed. Subsequently, the appeal as well as the 1 st Suit was withdrawn on 18.02.2021 a
The requirement for registered title documents and the need to establish uninterrupted possession to claim ownership of the property.
Possession and title claims must be substantiated by registered documents; unregistered agreements do not confer legal ownership.
Defendants, who file a counter claim against the plaintiff, can maintain an application for temporary injunction against the plaintiff. Additionally, the court may injunct the plaintiff to maintain s....
The court ruled that temporary injunction requires a showing of prima facie title, balance of convenience, and credible evidence of possession, with registered sale deeds being prioritized over notar....
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession; failure to contest evidence leads to confirmation of ownership and injunction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
