Documents like GPA and Agreement to Sell may not confer ownership rights but create certain rights, such as possessory rights, which cannot be disturbed by a third party. The need for a Deed of Conveyance/Sale Deed for the transfer of immovable property was emphasized.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner laying a challenge to an order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Trial Court in CS No.3591/2019, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Petitioner before this Court is the Defendant before the Trial Court and Respondent is the Plaintiff. Parties hereinafter are referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court.

2. Factual matrix to the extent relevant is that Plaintiff claims to be the registered owner of property bearing No.4138/1, Ground floor, Gali No.108, B-Block, Near Kapoor Garments Store, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi in Khasra No.124/10, admeasuring 55 sq. yds. (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property'). Defendant, who is the real brother of the Plaintiff, is stated to be in possession of the ground floor of the suit property as a licensee. Plaintiff purchased the suit property from its erstwhile owner by way of Registered GPA, Agreement to Sell and other allied documents dated 20.10.2004 and water and electricity meters are also installed in Plaintiff's name.

3. It is Plaintiff's case that on request of the Defendant, he permitted the Defendant to reside in the suit property along with his family as a licensee and a permissive user albeit without payment of licence fee. However, since Plaintiff was in need of the property and the Defendant was also creating nuisance for him and his family, he requested the Defendant to vacate the property and hand over physical possession to the Plaintiff. On the Defendant's failure to vacate, legal notice dated 09.10.2019 was served on the Defendant terminating the licence and calling upon him to vacate the suit property within 15 days. When the Defendant did not hand over the possession of the property in the time granted, Plaintiff filed the present suit for mandatory and permanent injunction as well as damages.

4. Upon service of the summons, Defendant filed his written statement and subsequently an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to which no reply was filed by the Plaintiff. Two grounds were urged by the Defendant in the application: (a) suit is barred by law as Plaintiff has relied on GPA/agreement to sell etc. to show his ownership, which documents do not legally transfer title/ownership; and (b) suit is not valued properly as Plaintiff claims mandatory injunction, without being in possession of the suit property.

5. Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that even if GPA and other allied documents are not valid transfer documents and do not transfer title to the Plaintiff, it is irrelevant since the suit is predicated on licensor-licensee relationship and is not based on title of the Plaintiff and in any case, the documents do carry some weight in favour of the transferee to seek mandatory injunction. The other reason recorded in the order is that for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only plaint and documents annexed thereto have to be seen and no reference can be made to the written statement and/or documents filed by the Defendant. According to the Trial Court, Plaintiff has averred in the plaint that Defendant was inducted as a licensee and permissive user and there is also a reference to Registered GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Receipt, Possession Letter etc. executed in favour of the Plaintiff by the erstwhile owner and no ground was made out to reject the plaint.

6. Insofar as the second ground with respect to payment of court fee and undervaluation of the suit was concerned, Trial Court has disagreed with the Defendant and held that relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is that of licensor and licensee and in such a case he need not seek recovery of possession and the suit was thus correctly valued.

7. Learned counsel for the Defendant contended that Trial Court has erred in appreciating that no right, title or interest was created in favour of the