Ownership cannot be claimed based solely on unregistered agreements, requiring direct legal recognition for enforceable title.

JUDGMENT

1. On 22nd November, 2019 when this suit came up first before this Court, the following order was passed;

"3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for declaration of his ownership on the basis of General Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to Sell and Affidavit of possession, of a piece of land ad measuring 1150 sq. yds. in Khasra No.409, situated at Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff of the said plot.

4. I have enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, how the plaintiff, on the basis of unregistered document, be declared as owner.

5. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the documents are of 1987 and the land is situated in an unauthorised colony registrations with respect to transfers wherein are not done.

6. The same would not still make the plaintiff the owner of the land.

7. The counsel for the plaintiff seeks adjournment.

8. The plaintiff though has valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.3 crores, to institute the suit in this Court, but the suit insofar as for the purpose of injunction is valued at Rs.130/- only and thus, once the relief of declaration is not maintainable in law, the relief if any of injunction will have to be claimed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi.

9. I may in this context also mention that in terms of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 an inquiry of title cannot be in a suit for injunction simplicitor and without an inquiry into title it will not be possible to grant any injunction also, especially in view of the pleadings of the plaintiff, of the defendant having illegally grabbed the land and wherefrom it appears that it is the defendant and not the plaintiff who is presently in possession of the land.

10. The plaintiff to consider all the said aspects also.

11. Subject to the plaintiff depositing costs of Rs.10,000/- with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust, list on 6th December, 2019."

2. The plaintiff first filed IA No.17229/2019 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which was allowed on 20th December, 2019. On consideration of the amended plaint, on 7th January, 2020, the following order was passed:

"1. The amended plaint has been perused and it is found that the questions raised and recorded in the order dated 27th November, 2019 remain. The plaintiff cannot be granted relief of declaration of ownership on the basis of Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, will and affidavit of possession and the valuation of the suit is also composite for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction and once the suit for declaration is not maintainable, the plaint has to be rejected.

2. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the dicta of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656 poses a problem for agreement purchasers with possession in part performance and who, for diverse reasons, may be unable to sue for specific performance.

3. Even if persons like the plaintiff are in any difficulty, they having opted to enter into an agreement with respect to land in unauthorised colonies which have come up over public land, are not entitled to any relief from the Court.

4. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the colony can be unauthorised not only for the reason of being on public land but also for the reason of being on agricultural land.

5. The same, in my view, would not make any difference. Even if the colony is on ag