Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 406

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Smt. Khatiza Begam, W/o Late Sh. Sheikh Mohd. Hakim - Appellant
Versus
Ms. Salma Khan, D/o Sh. Mumtaz Khan – Respondent
RSA 17 of 2025
Decided On : 16-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Namita Roy and Ms. Gopa Biswas, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohd Moonis Abbasi, Adv.

In a suit for recovery of possession, if the plaintiff establishes a superior possessory entitlement through title documents and the defendant fails to prove any competing legal interest or right to occupy, the court shall grant the decree in favor of the party with the better possessory title.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Suit for possession and arrears of rent - Doctrine of better title - In a suit for recovery of possession, where the plaintiff demonstrates a superior entitlement to possession via title documents and the defendant is unable to establish any competing title or lawful right of occupancy, the court is empowered to adjudicate based on the relative strength of each party's possessory claim. (Para 49)

(B) Property Law - Better Possession - The principle 'possessio contra omnes valet praeter eum cui ius sit possessionis' implies that possession is valid against the world, except the person having a stronger legal claim; thus, a party with a superior possessory right is entitled to relief against an unauthorized occupant. (Para 50)

(C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Suit for possession based on title - Limitation period for a suit for possession is twelve years; absence of proof of adverse possession by the defendant renders the claim maintainable upon establishing superior proprietary rights. (Para 52)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought recovery of possession and arrears of rent, claiming ownership through a series of sale documents from the original allottee. The defendant asserted possession through her deceased spouse but provided no documentary evidence. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to prove a landlord-tenant relationship. The first appellate court reversed this, finding the plaintiff had a better right to possession. The defendant challenged this in a second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that even if a specific landlord-tenant relationship remains unproven, the plaintiff's established possessory title, stemming from valid documentation, surpasses that of the defendant who produced no proof of acquisition or title. The suit was found to be within the limitation period.

Issues: The main issues were whether a suit based on a failed landlord-tenant claim could be decreed on the basis of better title, and whether the defendant’s long-standing occupancy constituted a valid defense against the plaintiff's title.

Ratio Decidendi: When a defendant fails to demonstrate any title or legal right to occupation, the court must favor the party who presents the best possessory evidence, as the threshold for maintaining a claim of possession rests upon establishing a right superior to that of the occupant.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the plaintiff's ownership suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. defendant's plea regarding non-maintainability and denial of title. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. evidentiary support for plaintiff and defendant claims. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. previous lower court findings and appeal procedural history. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. contentions on substantial questions of law and proper evidence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
6. application of superior possessory title over unsupported claims. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
7. dismissal of the regular second appeal. (Para 64 , 65)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.10.2024 passed in RCA No. 1157/2024, whereby the learned ADJ set aside the Judgment dated 30/04/2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge dismissing the Suit for Possession, arrears of rent & injunction, and decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit bearing CS No. 27266/2016 for Possession, arrears of rent, mesne profit & permanent Injunction in respect of F-206, Phase- II, Sector- 3, Pappan Kalan, New Delhi- 110075 (hereinafter referred to as the „Suit Property‟).

3. The facts as narrated in the Plaint, are that the Plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner and person in possession of property bearing no. F-206, Phase-II, Sector-3, Pappan Kalan, New Delhi- 110075 (hereinafter referred to as the „Suit Property‟). According to the plaintiff, the suit property had been purchased from Sh. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Chelaji, the original owner/allottee, by virtue of duly notarized General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will dated 19.06.2006. Upon execution of the said documents and receipt of the sale consideration, the original allottee, Sh. Ram Lal handed over peaceful physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff along with the original title documents and identification records, which was issued by the Slum and J. J. Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

4. After acquiring the suit property, construction was raised thereon in July 2006, with financial assistance from her father, Sh. Mumtaz Khan.

5. The plaintiff alleged that in January 2009, the suit property was given to the defendant, on an oral tenancy agreement, at a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-, on the assurance that the defendant would regularly pay rent and vacate the premises whenever required.

6. The dispute arose when the defendant allegedly stopped making payment of rent after June, 2010. In August 2010, the defendant expressed her inability to pay rent, on account of financial difficulties and sought time to clear the arrears. Despite repeated assurances by the defendant and extensions granted by the plaintiff, the outstanding rent was never paid.

7. When the plaintiff demanded payment of the arrears and sought possession of the suit property in May, 2011, the defendant refused to comply and continued to remain in occupation of the premises. Rather, the defendant threatened to create third-party interests in the suit property.

8. The defendant neither cleared the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit property, despite repeated requests of the plaintiff. Consequently, a legal notice dated 07.06.2013 was issued terminating the tenancy and asking the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property and pay the outstanding rent. Despite the service of the notice, the defendant neither complied with the demands raised therein nor gave any reply.

9. The Plaintiff made a written complaint to the DCP, Sector- 19, Pappan Kalan, Dwarka, New Delhi regarding the defendant's illegal tenancy in the suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 406

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.Smt. Khatiza Begam, W/o Late Sh. Sheikh Mohd. Hakim - AppellantVersus Ms. Salma Khan, D/o Sh. Mumtaz Khan – Respondent RSA 17 of 2025Decided On : 16-06-2026

In a suit for recovery of possession, if the plaintiff establishes a superior possessory entitlement through title documents and the defendant fails to prove any competing legal interest or right to occupy, the court shall grant the decree in favor of the party with the better possessory title.

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Smt. Khatiza Begam, W/o Late Sh. Sheikh Mohd. Hakim - Appellant
Versus
Ms. Salma Khan, D/o Sh. Mumtaz Khan – Respondent
RSA 17 of 2025
Decided On : 16-06-2026