Man Claimed His Father Bought the Property Through GPA in 1980; Delhi High Court Rejects Ownership Claim and Orders Possession to Purchaser
Facts
The respondent, Sarita, purchased the suit property through a registered Sale Deed dated 1 February 2022 from the legal heirs of the original owner, Bishamber Dayal. She claimed that the appellant’s father, Murari, had been a tenant under the previous owners and that, after purchasing the property, she stepped into the shoes of the landlord. She alleged that despite service of legal notices, the appellant neither paid rent nor vacated the premises and had even attempted to create third-party rights by subletting the property. She therefore filed a suit seeking possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and permanent injunction.
The appellant denied the landlord-tenant relationship and asserted that his father had purchased the property in 1980 from Bishamber Dayal through a GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will and Receipt, claiming ownership rather than tenancy. The Trial Court rejected this defence, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent and awarded possession, mesne profits and injunction. The appellant challenged that decree before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
- Whether the respondent established ownership through the registered Sale Deed.
- Whether the appellant proved ownership through the alleged GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will and Receipt executed in 1980.
- Whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties.
- Whether the decree for possession, mesne profits and injunction passed by the Trial Court required interference in appeal.
- Whether the appellant could claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that:
- his father had purchased the property in 1980 and therefore he was the owner, not a tenant;
- the Trial Court failed to record findings on several preliminary objections;
- the original owners had wrongly executed the registered Sale Deed in favour of the respondent despite knowing about the earlier transaction;
- there was no landlord-tenant relationship and therefore no liability to pay rent;
- he was entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act based on the 1980 transaction and long possession;
- if the Court doubted the signatures on the GPA documents, they ought to have been referred to the FSL for examination.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent contended that:
- she became the lawful owner through a duly registered Sale Deed, which remained unchallenged;
- mutation records also stood in her favour;
- the appellant failed to prove the authenticity of the alleged GPA transaction;
- the appellant’s own evidence and cross-examination established that his father had originally been a tenant;
- after purchase of the property, she lawfully became the landlord and the tenancy stood terminated through legal notice;
- the Trial Court had correctly decreed possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined:
- the evidentiary value of a registered Sale Deed;
- the burden of proving ownership through unregistered documents such as GPA, Agreement to Sell and Will;
- the legal consequences of admissions made during cross-examination;
- the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The Court held that once the respondent proved her title through a registered Sale Deed, the burden shifted to the appellant to establish a superior title. The appellant failed to discharge that burden because none of the alleged ownership documents were properly proved through competent witnesses.
The Court further observed that Section 53A protects only a transferee who proves a valid transaction satisfying the statutory requirements. Since the appellant failed to establish the authenticity of the alleged documents, he could not invoke the doctrine of part performance.
Precedent Analysis
The appellant relied upon:
- Giriyappa v. Kamalamma, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3849, to argue that his possession deserved protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The Delhi High Court distinguished the reliance by holding that the statutory protection under Section 53A was unavailable because the appellant failed to prove the alleged transfer documents and the foundational facts necessary to invoke the doctrine of part performance.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found that the respondent successfully established ownership by producing the registered Sale Deed and mutation records, whose genuineness was never disputed by the appellant.
Conversely, the appellant completely failed to prove the alleged 1980 transaction. During cross-examination:
- he admitted that he had never seen Bishamber Dayal sign the alleged documents;
- none of the attesting witnesses proved their execution;
- his own witnesses contradicted themselves and admitted that the documents had not been signed in their presence;
- one witness even admitted that her earlier statement regarding execution of the documents was false.
Most importantly, the Court noted that the appellant’s own cross-examination, as well as the testimony of his sister, established that his father had originally been a tenant under Bishamber Dayal. This directly contradicted the appellant’s plea of ownership.
The Court therefore concluded that:
- the respondent was the lawful owner;
- the appellant remained only a tenant;
- the tenancy had been validly terminated;
- the appellant had failed to establish any independent ownership rights.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Trial Court’s decree.
The Court held that the respondent proved her ownership through a registered Sale Deed, whereas the appellant failed to establish ownership through the alleged GPA transaction or prove entitlement to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It upheld the decree for possession, mesne profits at ₹5,000 per month from 1 February 2022 until delivery of possession, and the permanent injunction restraining the appellant from creating third-party rights.
Case Details
Case: Triloki Nath v. Sarita
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: RFA 335/2025
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: 27 July 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the decree granting possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction in favour of the respondent, holding that the registered Sale Deed prevailed over the appellant’s unproved claim of ownership based on GPA documents.
