Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Decree Granting Possession Based on GPA Sale Without Proven Possession: “Possession Is the Culmination and Fruit of the Transaction of Sale”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court’s decree which had granted recovery of possession, mesne profits, declaration, and injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove possession of the suit property or establish a concluded transaction, observing:

“Possession is the culmination and the fruit of the transaction of the alleged sale.”

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2012 passed by the Trial Court were quashed.

Facts

• The case pertained to a 50 sq. yards property in Budh Vihar, Delhi.
• On 10.01.2000, the second appellant executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter, Will, and Affidavit in favour of the respondent, for a consideration of ₹30,000.
• On 26.09.2001, the GPA and Will were revoked, and the property was sold to the first appellant (the second appellant’s brother) for ₹35,000 via registered documents.
• The respondent filed a civil suit on 19.08.2003 seeking possession, damages, declaration, and injunction.
• The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit (11.02.2010), but this was set aside on appeal and remanded for fresh adjudication.
• On remand, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent on 17.02.2012, prompting the current appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to a decree of possession.
2. Whether the respondent could claim ownership on the basis of unregistered documents.
3. Whether the declaratory and injunctive reliefs could be granted in absence of proven possession and title.

Petitioner’s (Appellants’) Arguments

• The documents dated 10.01.2000 did not result in a concluded sale since the consideration was allegedly not paid.
• Possession was never handed over to the respondent.
• Revocation of GPA and Will was valid and not challenged by the respondent.
• The suit property was continuously in possession of the appellants.
• Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act requires registration for sale of immovable property, which was not done.
• Section 53A TPA was inapplicable as there was no possession with the respondent.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondent paid the full consideration and received possession on 10.01.2000.
• The possession letter and affidavit acknowledged this.
• The sale was complete in terms of relevant documents.
• Later, on a humanitarian request, possession was given back to appellant no. 2 temporarily.
• Denial of payment was barred under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Revocation deeds did not mention non-payment as the reason for cancellation.

Analysis of the Law

• Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act mandates that sale of immovable property must be through a registered instrument.
• Section 53A TPA protection is conditional on possession, which was not proved in this case.
• Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act restrict oral evidence against written documents, but only where the foundational facts are proved.
• Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act protects irrevocable powers of attorney, but again only where consideration and possession are established.

Precedent Analysis

The Court referred to:

• Suraj Lamps & Industries v. State of Haryana (2011): SA/GPA/Will transactions are not valid conveyance and can only be considered as agreements to sell.
• Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma (2023): Possession must be proved; mere documents do not confer title or possession.
• Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008): Relief of declaration and possession cannot be granted when the title is clouded without seeking proper declaration.
• Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society (2014): Plaintiff must establish clear title; the weakness of the defendant’s case is immaterial.

Court’s Reasoning

• The documents dated 10.01.2000, though unregistered, were accepted as evidence of an alleged agreement, but not conclusive proof of title or possession.
• The respondent failed to call the husband of appellant no. 2—an essential witness to his claim of having temporarily returned possession.
• The respondent contradicted his own affidavit in cross-examination, admitting no goods or articles were in the suit premises.
• There was no documentary or independent witness evidence proving actual possession.
• The claim of possession was solely based on the documents, which lacked corroboration.
• The revocation deeds dated 26.09.2001 remained unchallenged.

Conclusion

The Court held:

“The finding of the Ld. Trial Court qua the grant of relief of possession purely on the basis of the documents without in any manner being able to prove possession from the date of the documents till the filing of the Suit is unsustainable.”

• The declaratory relief was also denied as the respondent failed to prove title.
• The relief of injunction was rejected since the respondent was not in possession on the date of suit.
• No costs were awarded.

Implications

• The judgment reinforces that unregistered SA/GPA/Will documents do not constitute a valid transfer of immovable property.
• A party claiming possession must prove it independently, not merely rely on documents.
• Declaratory relief over title must be backed by cogent proof and cannot be claimed when revocation deeds remain unchallenged.
• Relief of injunction is contingent on actual possession, not just claim of ownership.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds BMC’s Demolition Notice on Mercedes-Benz Workshop Premises But Restricts Action to Illegal Additions — “Extensions So Extensive, It’s Difficult to Distinguish Old from New; Demolition Must Spare Original Structure and Permissible Repairs”