Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a Regular First Appeal challenging the judgment of the Trial Court which had denied relief of possession, mesne profits, and injunction in respect of a family property. The appellant claimed ownership on the basis of a Sale Deed allegedly executed by his mother in 1995. However, the Court held that the document was riddled with inconsistencies, lacked crucial signatures and attestation, and was produced belatedly under dubious circumstances. The Court reiterated that “ownership must be proved through cogent and credible evidence” and upheld the Trial Court’s finding that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Facts
The dispute centered around property located at B-200, Gali No. 6, Hardev Puri, Delhi. The appellant claimed he had purchased the property from his mother in 1995 for ₹75,000 through a registered Sale Deed, and that his brother (the respondent) was only a licensee permitted to reside on the ground floor. The appellant alleged that the respondent later refused to vacate, prompting him to issue legal notices in 2012 and file a civil suit for possession in 2016.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2019, holding that the appellant had not proven ownership. The appellant then filed this appeal, producing the alleged “original Sale Deed” during pendency, claiming it was unavailable earlier as it had been mortgaged for a loan. He sought to rely on this document under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
Issues
- Whether the appellant validly proved ownership of the property through the alleged Sale Deed of 1995.
- Whether the respondent’s possession was that of a licensee liable to eviction.
- Whether the appellate court could permit production of the original Sale Deed at a belated stage as additional evidence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that he was the absolute owner by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 27 October 1995 executed by his mother. He claimed he had allowed his brother to reside as a licensee, whose occupation was terminated through legal notices. He contended that the Trial Court erred in ignoring his evidence, including testimony from a Sub-Registrar office official confirming registration of the Sale Deed.
He explained the absence of the original Sale Deed before the Trial Court by stating it was mortgaged against a loan and only retrieved in 2019. He further claimed that the absence of signatures/thumb impressions on the last page of the Sale Deed was a clerical error in the photocopy. By application, he sought permission to place the original Sale Deed on record, asserting that non-production earlier was neither deliberate nor intentional.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent asserted that the Sale Deed was forged and fabricated. He highlighted inconsistencies between the document produced before the Trial Court and the one later submitted in the appeal, particularly regarding signatures and placement of photographs. He emphasized that the appellant failed to produce any license agreement to prove the respondent’s status as licensee, and that their mother—the alleged executant of the Sale Deed—was never examined.
The respondent also stressed that the appellant had not been living in the property since 1998, while he himself had always lived there with their mother. Given the doubtful authenticity of the Sale Deed and absence of corroborating evidence, the respondent argued that the appellant’s claim to ownership could not be sustained.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the Sale Deed and found glaring defects:
- The copy produced before the Trial Court lacked the executant’s signature/thumb impression on the last page.
- The purported original produced before the appellate court suddenly contained such signatures, with no explanation for the discrepancy.
- Witness testimony revealed use of erasing fluid on photographs.
- The appellant’s own admission in cross-examination confirmed missing signatures.
The Court held that such anomalies created grave doubts about the authenticity of the Sale Deed. Further, the appellant had not produced his mother or attesting witnesses for examination, nor had he proved payment of sale consideration.
On the issue of producing additional evidence, the Court referred to Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, emphasizing that additional evidence cannot be admitted at the appellate stage unless the party shows due diligence and necessity. The appellant’s belated attempt after years of litigation showed lack of diligence and was not permissible.
Precedent Analysis
- Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148: Held that additional evidence cannot be admitted in appeal unless due diligence is shown; appellate courts must not supplement evidence of negligent parties.
- State of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya (2014) 13 SCC 468: Reiterated that additional evidence is permissible only when, despite due diligence, it could not be produced at trial.
- H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy (2021) 5 SCC 241: Clarified procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for introducing additional evidence.
- Earlier rulings such as State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal (AIR 1957 SC 912) and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam (AIR 1969 SC 101): Established that negligence or remissness in trial cannot be cured by adducing evidence in appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court concluded that the appellant had failed to establish his ownership of the property. The inconsistencies in the Sale Deed, unexplained delay in producing the alleged original, absence of corroborating witnesses, and failure to prove consideration rendered the claim untenable.
The Court emphasized that “ownership cannot rest on suspicious documents or uncorroborated statements; the burden to prove title lies squarely on the claimant.” Since ownership was not proved, the basis for seeking possession and mesne profits collapsed.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld. The Court found no merit in the appellant’s claims and refused to admit the belated production of the alleged original Sale Deed. The pending applications were also disposed of.
Implications
This judgment underscores the importance of clear, consistent, and duly executed title documents in property disputes. It reinforces that suspicious documents, especially those produced belatedly, cannot form the basis of ownership claims. It also affirms strict adherence to Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, warning litigants that appellate courts will not indulge negligent parties seeking to fill gaps in their evidence belatedly.
FAQs
Q1. Can a property claim be based on a Sale Deed lacking signatures/thumb impressions?
No. Such a document is invalid and cannot confer ownership. Proper execution and attestation are mandatory.
Q2. Can additional evidence be produced in appeal to prove ownership?
Only if the party shows that despite due diligence, it could not be produced earlier. Negligence or delay without justification will not be excused.
Q3. What happens if ownership is not proved in a possession suit?
If ownership is not established, the foundation of the possession claim fails, and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
