Ownership of property is transferred upon execution of a sale deed; possession cannot be denied based on unpaid sale consideration.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Judgment on admissions - The court has discretion to give judgment based on admissions made by a party - The trial court allowed possession in favor of plaintiffs after determining clear admissions by the defendant regarding the sale deed. (Paras 24, 27, 30)

(B) Admission and Possession - A registered sale deed conveys ownership immediately upon execution, and a seller cannot retain possession based on unpaid consideration. (Paras 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The appellants contested possession after selling property to respondents, who claimed ownership based on execution of the sale deed but faced delays in construction completion and possession delivery. (Paras 4-6)

Findings of Court:
The trial court ruled that admissions indicated ownership and possession must be granted, rejecting the argument of unpaid consideration delaying possession. (Paras 30, 32)

Issues: Whether the trial court rightly decreed possession based on admissions and the validity of sale deed despite claims of unpaid amount. (Para 16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that ownership transfers immediately upon execution of a sale deed and possession cannot be withheld due to claims of unpaid sale consideration. (Paras 28-29)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the property dispute. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. appellant's contentions regarding limitations and payment disputes. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
3. arguments regarding admissions and evidential requirements. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 29 , 30)
4. analysis of order xii rule 6 cpc. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth J. (Oral)

C.M. No. 48619/2022 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

RFA 559/2022 and C.M. No. 48620/2022 (Stay)

3. The Appellant (Original Defendant) has preferred the present Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2022 ("impugned judgment") passed by the ADJ-07, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in Suit No. 473/2021 titled as Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs Surjeet Kumar Khurana & Anr.. Vide the Impugned Judgment & Decree dated 30.08.2022, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the application filed by Respondent Nos.1&2 (Original Plaintiffs) under Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code,1908 and partly decreed the suit and granted the possession of the suit property in favour of Respondent Nos.1&2.

Facts relevant for the consideration of the present Appeal are as follows:

4. Ms. Sumitra Devi, Respondent No. 1 herein is a senior citizen and a widow. Respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.1. The Appellant was the owner of the residential property located at Khasra No. 28, situated in abadi known as Ranjit Nagar, Gali No.6 in the area of Village Shadipur, New Delhi vide a registered sale deed dated 16.03.2011 ("Suit Property"). The Appellant was constructing a new building at the Residential Property.

5. The dispute pertains to the entire flat on the second floor ad-measuring 125 sq. yards along with one car parking and a single two wheeler parking located at the stilt level of the residential building constructed by the Appellant at the Residential Property.

6. That in the month of March 2011, Respondent Nos.1 & 2, through their Special Power of Attorney holder Mr. Rajesh Santani approached Mr. Inder Singh Khurana, son and attorney of the Appellant, for the purchase of Suit Property which formed a part of the under construction building. The total consideration to be payable by the Respondents to the Appellant for the Suit Property was agreed at Rs.47,00,000/-.

7. To materialise their understanding, Respondent No.1 and the Appellant entered into a Property Development Agreement dated 25.12.2011 (the "PDA") with respect to the Suit Property. In accordance with the said PDA, the Suit Property i.e., the flat was required to be ready for possession by January 2012. The completely constructed Suit Property in a ready to move condition was required to be handed over to Respondent No.1 latest by 31.5.2012 failing which the Appellant was under an obligation to pay interest @ 18% p.a for the delayed period on the total amount paid by Respondent No.1. The said PDA further stated that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.47,00,000/-, Respondent No.1 had paid an advance of Rs.25,50,000/- (Rs.17,45,000/- was paid through cheques/bank transfer and Rs.8,05,000/- was paid in cash) to the Appellant. The balance sale consideration of Rs.21,50,000/- was required to be paid according to the progress of the construction of the Suit Property. The said PDA further records that the Appellant will inform Respondent No.1 through email regarding the progress of construction and accordingly raise demand on Respondent No. 1 for the payment of instalments. Respondent No.1 is required to honour the said demand note within 5 days failing which interest @ 18% p.a. for the delayed period is required to be paid by Respondent No.1 on such due amount.

8. Subsequently, the Appellant executed a registered sale deed dated 23.10.2012 with respect to the Suit Property in favour of Respondent Nos.1&2 for a