Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Uttam Pandit – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chand – Respondent
RSA 131/2025|RSA 132/2025|CM APPL. 53794-53797/2025|CM APPL. 53800-53801/2025
In the absence of proven absolute ownership, the court must adjudicate possession based on the principle of better possessory title. A party in peaceful, settled possession is protected against unauthorized dispossession, and unless superior title or earlier possession is proven, possession is evidence of right.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 10 - Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 - Specific Relief Act - Section 6 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 64 and 65 - Recovery of possession of immovable property - Suit based on possessory title versus ownership - When title is not conclusively proved by either party, the court must adjudicate based on better possessory title - Possession alone decides the matter where facts disclose no title in either party. (Paras 61, 63, 64, 65, 71)
(B) Possessory Title - Settled Possession - Person in peaceful possession of land is entitled to protect the same against all save the true owner - Forcible dispossession of a prior possessor, even by the rightful owner, requires due process of law - Where property is in dispute and title is not established, the court must determine who has a better right to remain in possession. (Paras 57, 58, 67, 69, 70)
(C) Documents of Title - Agreement to Sell - Power of Attorney - Documents not constituting registered sale deeds do not confer ownership rights in immovable property - Mutation and local house tax records do not function as valid documents of title. (Paras 17, 18, 31, 35, 73)
Facts of the case:
Multiple suits were filed regarding the recovery of possession of a property, with conflicting claims of ownership derived from a common predecessor. The lower courts dismissed the claims as the parties failed to prove absolute title through registered title deeds. The matter reached the High Court in second appeals, focusing on the determination of superior possessory right between the contesting litigants.
Findings of Court:
Both parties failed to establish absolute ownership through valid title deeds. The evidence indicated that one party held a superior possessory history, corroborated by historical judicial proceedings and the nature of their occupation, whereas the opposing party failed to substantiate their claim as a prior peaceful possessor.
Issues: The main issues were whether a claim for recovery of possession is maintainable without establishing absolute ownership and how to determine the superior possessory right when both parties fail to prove proprietary title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases where absolute title is not proven, the court must adjudicate based on the party having a better possessory title. Possessory rights are distinct from proprietary rights, and a person in peaceful settled possession is entitled to protection unless evicted through the due process of law.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical context and procedural history of property litigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. conflicting claims of ownership and possessory disputes (Para 11 , 12 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 3. issues framed and evidence produced during trial (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. evaluation of mutation records versus conclusive title (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. grounds of appeal and assessment of possessory rights (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 6. distinction between possessory and proprietary titles (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 7. final adjudication based on superior possessory title (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77) |
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Both Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 read with Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 of CPC have been filed on behalf of the Appellant, Uttam Pandit against common Judgment and Decree dated 24.05.2025 passed by Ld. District Judge, Delhi in RCA DJ No. 61896/2016 preferred by the Respondent, Ramesh Chand and RCA DJ No. 148/2017 preferred by the Appellant, Uttam Pandit respectively, whereby the Appeal of Ramesh Chand was allowed and decree of possession in favour of Ramesh Chand was passed, while the Appeal of the Appellant, Uttam Pandit was dismissed.
Suit No. 95328/2016: Filed by Ramesh Chand on 22.03.1995, for Declaration, Recovery of Possession, Damages and Mesne Profit and Permanent Injunction, against Uttam Pandit.
2. The Respondent, Ramesh Chand filed a Suit No. 95328/2016 (initially bearing CRN No. DLCT03-000051-1995), before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge -11 Delhi on 22.03.1995, against the Appellant Uttam Pandit for Declaration, Recovery of Possession, Damages and Mesne Profit and Permanent Injunction. Plaintiff Sh. Ramesh Chand stated that Sh. Om Prakash was the original allottee of property bearing Ghat No.24, Municipal No.2150, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi (herein after referred to as ‘Suit Property’) measuring about 13 Biswas (i.e. about 650 sq. yards) forming part of Khasra No.235/101/36 situated in the revenue estate of Village Bela, Delhi, which he had bequeathed to Smt. Munno Devi, vide Will dated 08.09.1964. The case of the Ramesh Chand was that Smt. Munno Devi bequeathed the Suit Property in favour of Respondent, Ramesh Chand through a Will dated 26.02.1992, by virtue of which, Ramesh Chand became the owner of aforesaid property.
3. Ramesh Chand in his Suit, further explained that Sh. Om Prakash had one servant Sh. Suraj Prakash S/o Sh. Ram Ujagar and one room was given to him in the Suit Property. After demise of Sh. Om Prakash, Sh. Suraj Prakash started claiming himself to be the son of Late Sh. Om Prakash and started creating nuisance. When this fact came to the knowledge of Smt. Munno Devi, she terminated the services of Sh. Suraj Prakash and asked him to vacate the room, which was in his occupation as a tenant in the Suit Property, but he failed to vacate the room.
4. Ramesh Chand further stated that Defendant Uttam Pandit was a friend of Sh. Suraj Prakash and used to visit the Suit Premises, for offering prayers and pooja. He in collusion with Sh. Suraj Prakash, filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction on 20.10.1987 bearing No. 264/1987, which got dismissed by the then Learned Sub-Judge, on 24.05.1988.
5. Ramesh Chand further averred that one more Suit bearing No.299/1988 was filed on 27.05.1988 by the Appellant Uttam Pandit, which got dismissed by Learned Sub Judge First Class, Delhi, vide Order dated 12.01.1993.
6. Ramesh Chand further stated that Smt. Munno Devi had filed an Eviction Petition against Sh. Suraj Prakash, which was settled by way of a compromise and Suraj Prakash vacated and handed over the possession of the room. The Petition was, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn.
7. Sh. Ramesh Chand further stated that on 03.07.1994, Defendant Sh. Uttam Pandit
