Possession established by the Respondent cannot be overcome by mere claims of ownership from the Appellant without substantial evidence of prior dispossession.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 - Dismissal of interim application - Appellant claimed ownership and possession of property, but failed to establish a prima facie case - Respondent, the Appellant's son, was in continuous possession and there existed an admitted legal admission of the Respondent's possession - The Trial Court found the Appellant's claim dubious due to lack of evidence of dispossession - The Appellate Court upheld the lower court's findings. (Paras 1-27)

(B) Possession - Legal possession and interim relief - A claim for possessory relief cannot be granted where the Respondent's possession is established, as supported by prior admissions in court - The court emphasized the need for substantial evidence. (Paras 12-24)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant, a senior citizen, challenged the dismissal of his application for possession against his son, who had remained in the property since 2002. The Appellant claimed to be the owner based on familial agreements, but the Respondent maintained continuous possession. Legal notices were sent, but the Respondent did not vacate.

Findings of Court:
The court reiterated that the Respondent at all times maintained possession and the Appellant's claims were weak and unsupported by material evidence.

Issues: Main issues included the determination of possession, the legitimacy of claims for possession by the Appellant, and the trial court's previous findings regarding ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Appellant had not demonstrated a prima facie case as required to grant interim relief, given the Respondent's established possession.

Result: The appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. ownership and possession of the property (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. respondent's legal conflict over property claims (Para 8 , 9)
3. need for evidence in possession claims (Para 10 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. admission of possession impacts legal claims (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. court findings on possession validity (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
6. judgment on appeal and trial expedite order (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Appellant impugns order dated 10.11.2020, whereby the application of the Appellant under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 94E and 151 CPC has been dismissed holding that the Appellant has failed to show a prima facie case.

2. Appellant, a senior citizen, has filed the subject Suit for possession against the Respondent his son contending that he is the owner of the suit property bearing no. 365, Street no. 1, Part of Khasra no.551/431 and 164, Pradhan Marg, Nirankari Colony, Delhi - 110009.

3. It is alleged that the property was purchased by his father Late Shri Inder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 06.05.1966. Shri Inder Singh expired on 04.03.1985 leaving behind the Appellant and his sister who became the co-owners of the said property.

4. As per the Appellant, he renovated the ground floor and reconstructed the property in May 1996 and since then has been residing in the suit property. His sister namely Shanti Devi executed a registered relinquishment deed vide Regn. No.5324 dated 01.07.1996 in his name and thereafter, he became sole and absolute owner of the suit property.

5. It is contended that the Respondent is his elder son and as he was working with the Indian Air Force, he was posted from time to time at different stations where he resided with his family and even at the time of his posting in Delhi, he resided in his official residence.

6. It is alleged that the Respondent retired from the service in the year 2002 and requested the Appellant to reside in a portion of the ground floor. Appellant allowed the Respondent and his family to reside for some time in the front side portion of the ground floor of the suit property. It is contended that as Appellant was not having any permanent source of income, other parts of the property used to be let out to the students of Delhi University.

7. It is contended that the Appellant through his advocate served a legal notice dated 04.04.2011 upon the Respondent requiring him to vacate the suit property. It is contended that in reply dated 25.04.2011, Respondent admitted that he had no right, title or interest in the suit property and that he was under an obligation to vacate the suit property, however he kept on occupying the suit property in illegal manner.

8. It is contended that after the termination of the license, Respondent filed a false and frivolous suit for partition and permanent injunction seeking a restraint on the Appellant from dispossessing him from the suit property.

9. It is contended that the Trial Court in that Suit was pleased to pass an order restraining the Appellant from dispossessing the Respondent from the suit property. Appellant filed an appeal but the Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal. It is contended that in the meantime, Respondent taking the benefit of the old age of the Appellant put his locks on the other portions of the suit property thereby denying the access to the other portion of the suit property.

10. It is contended by learned counsel for the Appellant that even at an ad-interim stage the Trial Court could have passed an order directing the Respondent to hand over the possession of rear portion of the ground floor and upper floors. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the coordinate bench of this court in Sukerma Rani Kapoor versus Om Prakash Kapoor, 2002(2) AD (Delhi) 860 wherein this court had granted a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage and directed the son to restore the possession of the property to his mother.

11. Per Contra, the case of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document