Ownership cannot be claimed through permissive use without registered documentation, reinforcing the necessity of legal evidence for establishing property rights.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. None appears for the parties. Substantial questions of law are yet to be framed in the present second appeal.

3. The order dated 11th September, 2019 passed in this case, reads as under:

" This appeal had to be adjourned on 08.08.2019 because the arguing counsel was not available. An application for early hearing was moved which was not prosecuted as there was no appearance on it being taken up on 03.09.2019. The matter has been listed again today on the application for preponement. When it was called out in the morning, none appeared. The matter was adjourned but while the court was about to dictate the order, the counsel came in and sought opportunity to be heard. On being asked to make his submissions, the counsel was clueless. He then sought the matter to be passed over. To facilitate his preparation, the file of the court was handed over to him. When it is again taken up late in the afternoon, the counsel is still not ready. He now seeks an adjournment.

Be listed on 13.09.2019."

4. Thereafter, adjournments have been taken on behalf of the Appellant on three occasions. Since inception, this appeal has in effect not been argued on behalf of the Appellant. None appears even today.

5. The brief background of the matter is that the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, seeking actual, vacant and peaceful possession of the property bearing no.53-A, Gali No.9, Swami Shrdhanand Park, Bhalsva, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110042, ad measuring 25 sq. yds. After completion of pleadings in the suit bearing no. 83/08, evidence was led before the Trial Court. Vide order dated 10th February 2009, the following issues were framed in the suit:

"i.) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for. (OPP)

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of mesne profits. If so, at what rate and for what period. (OPP)

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for. (OPP)

iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the award any injunction? If so, at what rate and for what period. (OPP)

v) Whether the plaintiff us guilty of concealing of material facts. (OPD)

vi) Whether the defendant has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff. (OPD).

vii) Relief. "

6. After hearing the parties, vide judgment/decree dated 1st November 2011, the ld. Civil Judge, Central District-01, Delhi, held that the Plaintiff had failed to prove her rights and title in the property, as the documents in respect of the same were not registered and that the Defendant was in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court.

7. Thereafter, vide order dated 3rd May, 2013, passed by the ld. ADJ-03, Central District, Delhi, the order of the Trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on all the issues. In the second round, vide judgment/decree dated 21st September, 2013 passed by the ld. Civil Judge-01, Central District, Delhi, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. It was held that the Defendant was unable to show in her defence that she had purchased the property from the Plaintiff, and thus the suit was decreed in the following terms:

"34. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The defendant is directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property measuring 25 sq. yards land in plot bearing no.53A, Gali No.9, out of K