A registered relinquishment deed supersedes any oral assurances regarding property rights, establishing clear ownership under the law.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 3rd February, 2021 by which the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 20th July, 2020 has been upheld by the Appellate Court.

3. The property in question is property bearing No.P-24, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi-110091 (hereinafter, "suit property"). Mr. Dalbir Singh - the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") had filed a suit for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and mesne profits against the Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter, "Defendants"), who are the elder son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the Plaintiff.

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the third floor with terrace in the suit property. According to the Plaintiff, he had purchased the suit property in 1987. In 1996, he transferred ownership of the suit property in favour of his wife - Smt. Nepali. The case of the Appellants is that upon the death of the Plaintiff's wife, the son executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the father under the assurance that the suit property would be bequeathed equally upon the two sons. The said relinquishment deed was registered on 27th July, 2015. However, the father changed his mind and the earlier Will dated 11th August, 2015, which was executed giving both the sons an equal share in the suit property was cancelled and a new Will was executed by the Plaintiff-father on 25th July, 2016. On the basis of this new Will and the fact that the Plaintiff has disowned the Appellants herein by issuing a public notice, the Plaintiff-father sought a mandatory and permanent injunction against the Appellants for eviction of the Appellants herein from the suit property.

5. In the suit, the impugned order was passed on 20th July, 2020 in the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The findings of the Trial Court are that the Defendants in the suit did not dispute the fact that the father was the owner of the suit property; the only defence is that the relinquishment deed was executed under the clear assurance by the father that half of the suit property would devolve upon Appellant No.1. The Trial Court, however, clearly observed that the relinquishment deed having been executed, the decree is liable to be passed. The relevant findings of the Trial Court are as under:

"15. In the present case, relinquishment deed and admission by the defendant manifestly proves that no right vests with any of the defendants in the suit property and consequently, plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property. Being the owner of the suit property, the plaintiff is at liberty to remove the defendants from the suit property. Furthermore, in my view, the defendants have failed to raise any substantial defence which requires trial of the suit.

16. Accordingly, the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 12, Rule 6 CPC is allowed and judgment on admission is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.1 in respect to mandatory and permanent injunction. Defendants are directed to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the terrace and third floor of property bearing no. P-24, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi - 110009 (as shown in the site plan) to the plaintiff. Site plan shall form part of the decree. The defendants are also hereby permanently restrained from creating any third party interest, alienating, dispossessing the plaintiff, selling, altering, damaging or constructing upon the suit property."

6. The Appellate Court has upheld the said decree vide the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2021. The relevant findings of the Appellate Court are as under:

"6. Insofar as appellants' contentions about their right, title or interest in the aforesaid property is concerned, the same are without any merit. It is an undisputed fact that the property in question belo