Ownership of immovable property requires registered deeds; unregistered agreements do not confer title or enforceable rights.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 9350/2021 (condonation of delay)

1. The present application has been filed by the Appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 179 days in filing the accompanying appeal. It is averred in the application that the limitation period for filing the appeal expired on 07.04.2020 but on account of the nationwide lockdown imposed on 22.03.2020 due to the Pandemic Covid-19, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period of 90 days. The limitation was subsequently extended by the Supreme Court in a suo motu petition bearing SUO MOTU WRIT (CIVIL) NO.3 of 2020. As the position eased out, the appeal was filed on 08.10.2020. The delay in filing is bona fide and beyond the control of the Appellant.

2. I have gone through the reasons set out in the application and find that the Appellant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Application stands disposed of.

RSA 27/2021 & CM APPL. 9348/2021 (Stay) & CM APPL. 9349/2021 (U/O XLI Rule 27 CPC)

5. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed assailing the judgement dated 08.01.2020 of the First Appellate Court in RCA No. 60854/2016 whereby the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the impugned judgement and decree of the Trial Court dated 15.01.2016 was dismissed. Appellant herein was Defendant No. 2 in the suit while Respondent No. 1 herein was the Plaintiff. Respondent No. 2 was Defendant No. 1 and Respondents No. 3 to 6 herein were Defendants No. 4 to 7 respectively before the Trial Court. Parties are being referred as per their litigating status before this Court.

6. Vide judgement dated 15.01.2016, the learned Trial Court in CS No. 13/2009 decreed the suit of the Respondent No. 1 seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, declaration and possession, in respect of Plot measuring 101-1/3 sq. Yards, forming part of Khasra No. 1329, Nangloi, Prem Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Suit Property') in her favour. Trial Court passed a decree declaring Respondent No.1 to be the owner of the Suit Property as also a declaration that the documents filed by Appellant to substantiate her ownership are null and void. Appellant, Respondent No. 2 as well as their son were restrained from raising illegal construction on the Suit Property and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4/Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 were directed to remove the illegal constructions. Trial Court also passed a decree of possession in favour of the Respondent No.1 directing the Appellant, Respondent No. 2 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit Property within a month of the judgement. First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant, leading to filing of the present Regular Second Appeal.

7. From a reading of the impugned judgements and the pleadings of the parties, the facts brought forth are as follows:

a. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit pleading therein that she had purchased the Suit Property from Smt. Bimla Devi for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Smt. Bimla Devi executed sale documents dated 21.02.1994 being GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit and Will, duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi.

b. It was pleaded that Smt. Bimla Devi had purchased the said plot of land by a duly registered Sale Deed dated 20.06.1984, a copy of which was also hand