A suit for declaration of title is maintainable without a claim for possession when the property is in possession of a tenant not part of the suit, as jurisdictions may bar possession claims under specific tenancy laws.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. The captioned appeals revolve around a similar controversy and, therefore, are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are extracted from RSA No. 82/2022.

2. The appeal has arisen out of the impugned judgment dated 25.05.2022 and decree dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-8, (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA No.14/2017, whereby, the suit has been decreed while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge-10, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit no.161/2005, dismissing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff seeking declaration and cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.06.2002 as null and void.

3. The contesting respondents i.e. Tarjit Singh and Dr. Jagjit Singh are claiming through their predecessor-in-interest namely, Shanti Devi and S. Sharam Singh, who were the owners of property bearing no.5/8, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as "suit property").

4. The facts of the case would further indicate that M/s Jainsons Westend was a partnership firm that was a tenant on the suit property vide a registered lease deed dated 31.05.1967. The property in question was a leasehold property and the owners were S. Sharam Singh and Shanti Devi each holding 50% shares in the property. S. Sharam Singh and Shanti Devi had filed a civil suit bearing no. 831/1989 for recovery of rent and possession of the tenanted premises against tenant partnership firm M/s Jainsons Westend.

5. During the pendency of the civil suit, S. Sharam Singh died on 18.05.1994, accordingly, his legal heirs i.e. the contesting respondents herein were brought on record. During the pendency of the said civil suit, parties entered into a compromise. As per the terms of the said compromise, an Agreement to Sell dated 16.01.1995 was also entered into. The contesting respondents agreed to sell the suit property to five companies namely, M/s. Jainsons Westend Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Jainsons Collections Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Jainsons Finance Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Saville Row Collections and M/s. Popular Sales. The appellant/defendant herein agreed to purchase 1/5^th of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- subject to terms and conditions that the property will be first converted into freehold from leasehold and then sale deeds shall be executed.

6. In pursuance of the Agreement to Sell, one unregistered general power of attorney was also jointly executed by the owners in favour of Rakesh Jain and Neena Jain. In view of the compromise, civil suit no. 831/1989 came to be disposed of vide order dated 21.04.1995 vide a compromise decree. It appears that thereafter, a dispute further arose between the parties and another suit came to be filed by the appellant/defendant before this Court on 08.01.1998 seeking specific performance of the aforesaid Agreement to Sell and Perpetual Injunction. The said suit got transferred to the District Court after a change in pecuniary jurisdiction and subsequently, registered as suit no. 253/2002, which was eventually withdrawn by the appellant/defendant on 03.03.2003.

7. On 10.06.2002, Mr. Rakesh Jain appears to have executed a sale deed with respect to 1/5^th share of the suit property in favour of M/s. Jainsons Westend Pvt. Ltd.

8. The respondent/plaintiff then filed a ci