Woman Claimed She Bought Dairy Farm Property for ₹10.5 Lakh in Cash; Delhi High Court Rejects Ownership Claim and Orders Eviction
Facts
The respondents instituted a suit for possession, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and mesne profits in respect of two rooms on the first floor of property situated at B-27, Road No. 2 & 3, Gazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi.
The original owner, Surender Singh, had executed a registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 26 March 2010 in favour of Respondent No. 2, Ravinder Singh, for valuable consideration. According to the plaintiffs, the appellant, Saroj, had been permitted to occupy the two rooms only as a licensee for looking after Surender Singh’s dairy business. After the licence was terminated through legal notices, she refused to vacate, resulting in the present suit.
The appellant denied being a licensee and claimed that she had purchased the property in 2006 for ₹10.5 lakh in cash, after selling another property in Ghaziabad. She asserted ownership over not merely two rooms but the entire first floor.
The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits, which was challenged before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
- Whether the suit remained maintainable after the death of the original owner.
- Whether the irrevocable GPA ceased to operate upon the death of the principal under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act.
- Whether the appellant proved that she had purchased the property in 2006.
- Whether the respondents established a better right to possession based on the licensor-licensee relationship.
- Whether the decree granting possession and mesne profits warranted interference.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant contended that:
- the suit abated after the death of Plaintiff No. 1 because a Power of Attorney automatically terminates on the principal’s death under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act;
- the GPA did not transfer ownership and therefore Plaintiff No. 2 had no locus to continue the proceedings;
- she had purchased the property in 2006 for ₹10.5 lakh, paid entirely in cash;
- the Will relied upon by the plaintiffs had not been duly proved;
- the plaintiffs failed to establish any licensor-licensee relationship;
- the award of mesne profits lacked evidentiary support.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents argued that:
- the original ownership of Plaintiff No. 1 was admitted by the appellant herself;
- the GPA was executed for valuable consideration and constituted an agency coupled with interest, which survived the death of the principal;
- the appellant failed to produce any sale deed, receipt or independent evidence of the alleged cash purchase;
- the appellant’s own admissions and earlier litigation established that her occupation originated only through the owner’s permission;
- the decree for possession and mesne profits was legally justified.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined:
- Sections 201 and 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872;
- the doctrine of agency coupled with interest;
- principles governing suits based on a better right to possession rather than declaration of title;
- the legal consequences of a licensor-licensee relationship;
- the doctrine of estoppel preventing a licensee from disputing the licensor’s title.
The Court clarified that the suit was not a title suit but a suit for recovery of possession. Therefore, the respondents only needed to establish a better right to possession than the appellant and not absolute ownership.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon:
- P. Seshareddy (D) v. State of Karnataka (2022) — an agency coupled with interest survives the death of the principal.
- Seth Loon Karan Sethiya v. Ivan E. John — authority granted for valuable consideration cannot be revoked to the prejudice of the agent’s interest.
- Krishan Dayal v. Chandu Ram — examination-in-chief remains admissible where cross-examination becomes impossible due to the witness’s death without fault of the party.
- Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh (1985) — a licensee cannot deny the licensor’s title after revocation of the licence.
- Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) was distinguished. The Court held that the case did not involve transfer of title through a GPA but recovery of possession based on a superior possessory right.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that the registered irrevocable GPA was executed for valuable consideration and was therefore an agency coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act. Consequently, the authority conferred upon Plaintiff No. 2 did not terminate upon the death of Plaintiff No. 1.
The Court found that the appellant completely failed to substantiate her alleged purchase:
- no registered conveyance was produced;
- no receipt for ₹10.5 lakh was produced;
- no independent witness supported the alleged transaction;
- she could not even state when the alleged payment had been made.
Further, her own evidence undermined her case. During cross-examination, she admitted that she had initially taken the property on rent at approximately ₹500 per month before claiming to have purchased it. Her own FIR also described her occupation as that of a tenant. These admissions were inconsistent with her plea of ownership and demonstrated that her occupation originated only through the owner’s permission.
The Court therefore concluded that the appellant was merely a permissive occupant and, having failed to establish any valid transfer of ownership, she could not resist the respondents’ claim for possession.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Trial Court’s decree. It held that the registered irrevocable GPA created an agency coupled with interest that survived the principal’s death, the appellant failed to prove any purchase of the property, and the respondents established a superior right to possession. The decree directing recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits at ₹600 per month with a 10% annual increase from 1 January 2012 until delivery of possession was upheld.
Case Details
Case: Smt. Saroj v. Late Surender Singh & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: RFA 437/2026
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: 27 July 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the decree for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits, holding that the respondents had a better right to possession, the appellant failed to prove ownership, and the irrevocable GPA coupled with interest survived the death of the original owner.
