Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Kartar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Chhikara - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 78 of 2021
Decided On : 28-03-2022
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Possession Suit - Section 94E and 151 CPC - [Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2, Section 94E, Section 151 CPC] - The court dismissed the appellant's application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 94E and 151 CPC, holding that the appellant failed to show a prima facie case. The court discussed the possession of the property, family agreements, and previous judicial findings, ultimately concluding that the possession of the entire property remained with the Respondent only.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a senior citizen, filed a Suit for possession against his son, claiming ownership of the property. The court dismissed the appellant's application for possession, citing lack of evidence of a prima facie case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to provide evidence of being dispossessed and that the possession of the entire property remained with the Respondent. The court also directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings within six months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of the property, family agreements, and the appellant's claim for possession without substantial relief in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of the appellant's dispossession and the previous judicial findings that the possession of the entire property remained with the Respondent.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings within six months.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - appellant impugns order dated 10.11.2020, whereby the application of the appellant under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 94E and 151 CPC has been dismissed holding that the appellant has failed to show a prima facie case.
2. appellant, a senior citizen, has filed the subject Suit for possession against the Respondent his son contending that he is the owner of the suit property bearing no. 365, Street no. 1, Part of Khasra no.551/431 and 164, Pradhan Marg, Nirankari Colony, Delhi - 110009.
3. It is alleged that the property was purchased by his father Late Shri Inder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 06.05.1966. Shri Inder Singh expired on 04.03.1985 leaving behind the appellant and his sister who became the co-owners of the said property.
4. as per the appellant, he renovated the ground floor and reconstructed the property in May 1996 and since then has been residing in the suit property. His sister namely Shanti Devi executed a registered relinquishment deed vide Regn. No.5324 dated 01.07.1996 in his name and thereafter, he became sole and absolute owner of the suit property.
5. It is contended that the Respondent is his elder son and as he was working with the Indian air Force, he was posted from time to time at different stations where he resided with his family and even at the time of his posting in Delhi, he resided in his official residence.
6. It is alleged that the Respondent retired from the service in the year 2002 and requested the appellant to reside in a portion of the ground floor. appellant allowed the Respondent and his family to reside for some time in the front side portion of the ground floor of the suit property. It is contended that as appellant was not having any permanent source of income, other parts of the property used to be let out to the students of Delhi University.
7. It is contended that the appellant through his advocate served a legal notice dated 04.04.2011 upon the Respondent requiring him to vacate the suit property. It is contended that in reply dated 25.04.2011, Respondent admitted that he had no right, title or interest in the suit property and that he was under an obligation to vacate the suit property, however he kept on occupying the suit property in illegal manner.
8. It is contended that after the termination of the license, Respondent filed a false and frivolous suit for partition and permanent injunction seeking a restraint on the appellant from dispossessing him from the suit property.
9. It is contended that the Trial Court in that Suit was pleased to pass an order restraining the appellant from dispossessing the Respondent from the suit property. appellant filed an appeal but the appellate Court dismissed the said appeal. It is contended that in the meantime, Respondent taking the benefit of the old age of the appellant put his locks on the other portions of the suit property thereby denying the access to the other portion of the suit property.
10. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that even at an ad-interim stage the Trial Court could have passed an order directing the Respondent to hand over the possession of rear portion of the ground floor and upper floors. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the coordinate bench of this court in Sukerma Rani Kapoor versus Om Prakash Kapoor 2002(2) aD (Delhi) 860 wherein this court had granted a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage and directed the son to restore the possession of the property to his mother.
11. Per Contra, the case of the Respondent is that admittedly, Respondent was in possession of the entire suit property even before the filing of the Suit and as such, the appellant was seeking a mandatory possessory injunction, which could not be granted by way of an ad-interim arrangement.
12. The Trial Court, while prima facie holding that though the claim of the defendant to the suit property is questionable and it is not disputed by the Respondent that the suit pro
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to show evidence of dispossession and the significance of previous judicial findings on possession.
Possession established by the Respondent cannot be overcome by mere claims of ownership from the Appellant without substantial evidence of prior dispossession.
The court affirmed that joint possession rights require cooperation among parties, and legal ownership secured through a relinquishment deed prevails against claims of occupancy by estranged family m....
The court clarified that an injunction cannot stand if the party seeking it is not presently in possession of the property.
The court clarified the limited extent of the restraint on the appellants and emphasized that the factual observations and findings in the impugned order shall not have a bearing on the final disposa....
Possession and title claims must be substantiated by registered documents; unregistered agreements do not confer legal ownership.
The requirement for registered title documents and the need to establish uninterrupted possession to claim ownership of the property.
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
