Delhi High Court Restores Wife’s Possession Decree, Holds GPA Sale Documents Can Prove Better Possessory Title Against Licensee
Facts
Babita Devi filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against Surender Singh in respect of one room on the first floor of property bearing No. E-57, Hari Nagar Extension, Part-II, Badarpur, New Delhi.
Her case was that the property was originally purchased by her husband, Ravinder Kumar, in 1995 through GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt. In 2005, her husband transferred the property to her through similar documents for a stated consideration of ₹4,22,000. The respondent, who was the brother of her husband, was permitted to stay in the suit property as a licensee because of family relations.
After disputes arose, Babita Devi terminated the licence through a legal notice dated 06.09.2010 and filed a suit for possession when the respondent failed to vacate.
The Trial Court decreed possession in her favour. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that unregistered GPA/Agreement to Sell documents did not confer title in view of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana. Babita Devi then filed the present Regular Second Appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
- Whether Babita Devi had established a better possessory title over the suit property as against the respondent.
- Whether the First Appellate Court erred in applying Suraj Lamp retrospectively to transactions of 1995 and 2005.
- Whether a licensee can rely on settled possession to resist eviction by a person having better possessory title.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the suit was not for declaration of absolute ownership, but for possession against a permissive occupant/licensee. Therefore, she was not required to prove perfect title but only a better right to possession than the respondent.
She contended that the First Appellate Court wrongly applied Suraj Lamp retrospectively, even though the transaction in her favour was of 2005 and the earlier transaction in favour of her husband was of 1995, both prior to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suraj Lamp.
It was further argued that the suit property was located in an unauthorised colony in Delhi, where transactions through GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt were common before Suraj Lamp. She also submitted that the respondent had failed to prove his own claim of inheritance from his father.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent argued that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and should be dismissed.
He contended that the documents relied upon by the appellant were unregistered and not duly stamped, and therefore could not confer title. He also argued that after the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, documents seeking to claim benefit under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act were required to be registered.
The respondent further claimed that the property was purchased by his father and that he had inherited a share in it. He denied being a licensee and asserted that he was in possession in his own right.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court held that the scope of a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law. The Court framed two substantial questions: whether the appellant had better possessory title, and whether Suraj Lamp was wrongly applied retrospectively.
The Court observed that a suit for possession can be based either on proprietary title or on possessory title. A plaintiff in a possession suit is not always required to prove absolute ownership; it may be sufficient to prove a better right to possession than the defendant.
The Court held that the appellant had produced documents showing a chain of possession from Pramod Kumar to her husband and then from her husband to her. The respondent, on the other hand, failed to prove his plea that the property was purchased by his father or that he inherited any share in it.
The Court also held that the doctrine of settled possession protects a person from forcible dispossession, but it cannot be used as a defence against a properly instituted civil suit by a person having a better possessory title. A licensee’s possession is legally referable to the licensor and cannot become an independent possessory right against the licensor after termination of licence.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander, where the Supreme Court held that a person in peaceful possession has good title against the whole world except the true owner.
It also relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, where the Supreme Court explained that in cases involving competing claims to possession, courts must examine the relative strength of the parties’ claims.
The Court referred to Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu and Poona Ram v. Moti Ram to clarify that settled possession is a shield against forcible dispossession, not a sword to defeat a lawful suit for possession.
On burden of proof, the Court relied on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh to hold that once the plaintiff produces documentary evidence supporting her claim, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove his defence.
On Suraj Lamp, the Court noted that the Supreme Court itself had saved genuine GPA/Agreement to Sell transactions entered into before the judgment and had clarified that such documents could still be relied upon for collateral purposes and for genuine family transactions.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found that both courts below had rejected the respondent’s plea of inheritance and forgery. The respondent had not examined the original executant or any expert witness to prove manipulation of documents.
The Court also noted that the property was situated in an unauthorised colony where house numbers were not allotted at the relevant time. Therefore, the respondent’s objection regarding the description of the property was rightly rejected.
The First Appellate Court’s finding that the 2005 transaction between husband and wife was sham was held to be legally erroneous. The respondent was a stranger to that transaction and had no locus to question the adequacy of consideration unless he proved that the transaction was intended to defeat his prior rights. No such right was proved.
The Court held that once the respondent was found to have no title and to be occupying the property as a licensee, he could not resist eviction by invoking settled possession. The appellant had a better possessory title, and the suit itself constituted due process of law.
The Court further held that the First Appellate Court wrongly applied Suraj Lamp retrospectively to a 2005 transaction and ignored the saving carved out in that judgment for prior and genuine transactions.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal and set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment dated 22.11.2019. The Trial Court’s decree dated 28.04.2014 granting possession to Babita Devi was restored.
The respondent was granted six months to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property, failing which the appellant was permitted to seek possession in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case: Babita Devi v. Surender Singh
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: RSA 62/2022, CM APPL. 27449/2022
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: 8 July 2026
Result: Regular Second Appeal allowed; First Appellate Court judgment set aside; Trial Court possession decree restored.
