A power of attorney cannot confer title to property, and ownership must be established for granting partition or possession. Individuals may seek partition based on possessory rights, but a valid cause of action must be present.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

"(A) Pass appropriate order(s) or direction(s) thereby setting aside the order dated February 14, 2020 passed in Suit No. 610933 of 2016 titled as "Mahinder Lal V. Vidya Sagar & Ors." by Learned Additional District Judge - West Delhi, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and thereby reject the Plaint filed by Respondent No. 1 in Suit no. 610933 of 2016;

(B) Pass such other or further order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."

FACTUAL HISTORY

2. The details of the parties in the instant dispute is as follows:

a. Ms. Rema Gupta, i.e., the petitioner no. 1 is stated to be the daughter of Late Sh. Ish Aneja (also mentioned as Late Sh. Ish Kumar at some places in the material on record).

b. Ms. Kusum Aneja, i.e., the petitioner no. 2 is stated to be the widow of Late Sh. Ish Aneja.

c. Sh. Aman Aneja, i.e., the petitioner no. 3 is stated to be the son of Late Sh. Ish Aneja.

d. Sh. Mahinder Lal, i.e., the respondent no. 1 is stated to be the son of Sh. Kundan Lal.

e. Late Sh. Vidya Sagar, i.e., the respondent no. 2 is stated to be the son of Late Sh. Devi Dayal Aneja through his legal heirs Smt. Savitri Aneja (widow), Sh. Ashish Aneja (son), Ms. Benu Kalhan (daughter), Ms. Renu Manchanda (daughter), pro forma respondent.

f. Sh. Prem Sagar, (pro forma respondent) the respondent no. 3 is stated to be the son of Late Sh. Devi Dayal Aneja.

g. Late Sh. Gian Sagar, i.e., the respondent no. 4 is stated to be the son of Late Sh. Devi Dayal Aneja through his legal heirs Ms. Titly Aneja (widow), Ms. Tia (daughter), Ms. Sheena (daughter), (pro forma respondent).

h. Ms. Krishna Kumari, (pro forma respondent), i.e., the respondent no. 5 is stated to be the daughter of Late Sh. Devi Dayal Aneja.

i. Late Ms. Saroj Kumari is stated to be the daughter of Late Sh. Devi Dayal Aneja, through her legal heirs Sh. Harish Dudeja (widower), Sh. Sunny Dudeja (son), Sh. Atul Dudeja (son) (pro forma respondent).

3. As per the plaint, a plot admeasuring 200 sq.yards, bearing no. B-11, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit property"), was purchased jointly by Sh. Ish Aneja (since deceased) and Sh. Devi Dayal (since deceased), from the rehabilitation housing corporation.

4. Thereafter, Late Sh. Ish Aneja and Late Sh. Devi Dayal constructed a building jointly upon the above said land. Late Sh. Ish Aneja then moved to the United States of America and appointed Sh. Kanwal Nain as his attorney in respect of his undivided half share in the suit property vide a general power of attorney dated 24th July, 1971.

5. In the year 1999, Sh. Kanwal Nain sold the aforesaid half share of suit property to one Sh. Rajender Walia for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs on 1st March, 1999 and executed an agreement to sell, a will, a receipt and a general power of attorney as well as a spe