IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of unregistered documents under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, and the lack of legal basis for a claim to possession based on such documents.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 61744/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 1973/2023, CM APPL. 61743/2023

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the ADJ-03, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi (`Appellate Court') in MCA DJ No. 26/2023, titled as `Mohd. Zaheer v. Mohd. Sagir and Anr.' whereby the said appeal against order dated 21.10.2023 was dismissed by the Appellate Court.

2. The order dated 21.10.2023 was passed by the ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Executing Court') in execution petition no. 9/2015, dismissing the objections filed by the Appellant herein under Order XXI Rule 26, 46(E) and 101 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') for stay of the execution proceedings.

3. The Petitioner herein is the objector. The Respondent No.1 is the decree holder and Respondent No.2 is the judgment debtor.

3.1. A suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and permanent injunction was filed by Respondent No. 1 (i.e., the plaintiff) against Respondent No. 2 (i.e., the defendant). The suit property was property bearing no. D-578 (Old No. D-57), Gali No. 3, Near Nargis Masjid, 15 Futa Road, Jaitpur Extension-part II, PO: Badarpur, New Delhi, measuring 54 sq. yards consisting of three (3) rooms at ground floor and upper constructions right, out of Khasra No.905-908/2 (`suit property').

3.2. The said suit was contested by Respondent No. 2 i.e., the defendant and was decreed on 28.11.2014. The said decree was challenged in a regular first appeal, which is stated to have been dismissed. The execution petition No. 9/2015 was filed on 22.01.2015 inter-alia for recovery of possession and in this petition, the Petitioner herein filed his objections claiming to the in occupation of a portion of the suit property (i.e., one room, kitchen, toilet, bathroom and the roof).

Arguments of the Petitioner-objector

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is in possession of a portion of the suit property, in pursuance to an unregistered Agreement to Sell (`ATS'), General Power of Attorney (GPA), affidavit, Will, Possession letter and Receipt all dated 27.05.2013, executed by Respondent No.1 in his favour for a consideration of Rs.16,80,000/-. He states that the decree of possession and permanent injunction dated 28.11.2014 has been obtained by the Respondent No. 1 in collusion with Respondent No.2.

5. In reply, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 states that the documents i.e., GPA, ATS, affidavit and Will etc. relied upon by the Petitioner are forged documents.

5.1. He states that an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1971 (`CrPC') was filed by Respondent No.1 before the Executing Court. He states that the said application was withdrawn vide order dated 23.09.2022 with liberty to file a fresh application after disposal of the execution petition.

5.2. He states that notwithstanding the above, the documents dated 27.05.2013 are unregistered, and in view of the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (`TP Act') and Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 (as amended on 24.09.2001) (`Registration Act'), the said documents are inadmissible and the possession of the Petitioner cannot be protected on the basis of the said unregistered documents.

5.3. He states that the case set up by the Petitioner is false in as much as the suit property comprises of three (3) rooms, one bathroom, one kitchen, one toilet and roof rights. He states that the suit no.1523 of 2013 was instituted by Respondent No.1 against Respondent No.2 for the entire suit property which, includes the portion currently in wrongful possession of the Petitioner. He states that after the evidence was led in the matter, the Trial Court passed a contested decree on merits was passed on 28.11.2