Delhi High Court Upholds Daughter’s Ownership of Father’s Property; Rejects Relatives’ Unproved Family Settlement and Orders Vacant Possession Within Three Months
Daughter Entitled to Recover Father’s Property From Relatives, Delhi High Court Holds; Unproved Settlement and Long Possession Cannot Defeat Her Ownership
Facts
The dispute concerned a 25-square-yard property situated at Village Karkardooma Colony, Arya Nagar, Delhi. The respondent-plaintiff, Leela Wati, claimed through her father, Hukum Singh, who had acquired the property from his brother Ram Rattan for ₹3,000 under an Agreement to Sell dated 26 May 1984.
Hukum Singh died on 22 July 2006. According to the plaintiff, she thereafter continued to assert rights over the property, but the defendants began raising construction and threatened to dispossess her. She ultimately instituted Civil Suit No. 560/2019 seeking declaration, possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.
The defendants did not dispute that Hukum Singh had purchased the property. Their principal defence was that a Settlement dated 8 November 1992 had been executed between Hukum Singh and Defendant No. 1, Mahavir Singh. Under this alleged settlement, Mahavir Singh was to become the absolute owner after the death of Hukum Singh and his wife, in consideration of looking after their daughters and performing family obligations.
The plaintiff relied upon the 1984 property documents and a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 16 February 2009, under which her sisters relinquished their respective shares in the property in her favour.
The District Judge held that the defendants had failed to prove the alleged 1992 Settlement and found Leela Wati to be the exclusive owner. The suit for declaration and possession was accordingly decreed on 9 January 2026. The defendants challenged the decree before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The High Court identified three principal questions:
- Whether the defendants had proved the Settlement dated 8 November 1992 so as to defeat the plaintiff’s claim.
- Whether the plaintiff had established her title to the suit property.
- Whether she was entitled to declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.
Appellants’ Arguments
The defendants argued that the Trial Court had wrongly declared the plaintiff the absolute owner on the basis of an Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 26 May 1984.
They relied upon Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana to contend that a GPA, Agreement to Sell and allied documents do not constitute conveyances capable of transferring ownership in immovable property.
They also challenged the plaintiff’s possession and argued that the identity and boundaries of the suit property had not been properly established.
The appellants further contended that the Trial Court had erroneously rejected the 1992 Settlement merely because its original was not produced. They maintained that the agreement conferred ownership upon Mahavir Singh after the death of the plaintiff’s parents.
Respondent’s Arguments
Leela Wati argued that the defendants themselves had admitted in their written statement that her father had purchased the suit property from Ram Rattan in 1984.
She therefore contended that they could not simultaneously accept Hukum Singh’s ownership for the purpose of claiming title through the alleged 1992 Settlement and dispute his ownership when defending her claim.
She further submitted that the original 1992 Settlement was never produced or proved. The defendants had therefore failed to establish any subsequent transfer of Hukum Singh’s interest.
Her title, after her father’s death, was further supported by the registered Relinquishment Deed executed by her sisters in her favour.
Analysis of the Law
The Court first examined whether the alleged 1992 Settlement had been proved.
Only a photocopy marked as Mark-A was produced. No notice had been given to the plaintiff to produce the alleged original despite the defendants claiming that it was in her possession. Nor was any complaint or other evidence produced concerning loss or removal of the original.
Significantly, Mahavir Singh—the alleged beneficiary and a party to the Settlement—did not enter the witness box. The Court considered his non-examination material because the execution of the document and circumstances surrounding it were matters within his special knowledge.
The scribe who allegedly prepared the Settlement also could not remember who had approached him, why the document had been prepared or its contents. The High Court held that his testimony weakened rather than supported the defendants’ case.
Even assuming that the defendants performed the parents’ last rites or discharged other family obligations, such acts could not by themselves prove execution or legal efficacy of the alleged Settlement, much less transfer ownership of immovable property.
Precedent Analysis
The appellants relied upon Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, to argue that GPA and Agreement to Sell transactions do not convey ownership.
The High Court, however, found Suraj Lamp inapplicable to the manner in which the defendants sought to use it. Their own written statement admitted Hukum Singh’s acquisition of the property, their witnesses acknowledged his ownership, and their entire claim under the 1992 Settlement necessarily proceeded on the premise that Hukum Singh possessed title capable of being transferred. They could not trace their own title through him while simultaneously denying his ownership.
The Court also relied upon Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165, for the proposition that possession may constitute good title against the world generally, but must yield when the rightful owner asserts superior title through legal process.
In Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, the Supreme Court had recognised protection of settled possession against forcible dispossession. However, such protection does not confer substantive ownership against the true owner who seeks possession through due process of law.
The Court further referred to Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, (2019) 11 SCC 309, distinguishing possessory remedies from proprietary rights and observing that a person asserting possessory title must establish a better title than the opposing party.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found the defendants’ position fundamentally inconsistent.
Their entire claim under the 1992 Settlement depended upon Hukum Singh having owned the property and subsequently transferring it to Mahavir Singh. Having themselves admitted Hukum Singh’s ownership, they could not defeat the plaintiff’s claim by arguing that his 1984 acquisition documents were legally insufficient to convey title.
Since the alleged 1992 Settlement was not proved, Hukum Singh had never been shown to have transferred or divested himself of his rights. His interest therefore continued until his death and thereafter devolved upon his daughters.
The plaintiff’s sisters subsequently executed a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 16 February 2009 in her favour. One sister entered the witness box and proved its execution. Significantly, Mangal Singh, the defendants’ principal witness, admitted his own signature on the Relinquishment Deed, demonstrating the defendants’ knowledge of the transaction.
The Court also rejected the contention that Leela Wati’s failure to permanently reside in the property after marriage defeated her ownership. It held that ownership of immovable property is not lost merely because the owner resides elsewhere.
Likewise, electricity bills, water bills, ration cards and other documents relied upon by the defendants could, at most, establish their occupation. They did not create any right, title or interest in the property.
The Court held that even long or settled possession could not operate as a defence against the rightful owner seeking possession through a court of law. The defendants’ possession could not mature into ownership merely because they had remained on the property for a considerable period.
The evidence further established that the defendants had demolished Hukum Singh’s old construction and raised a new building. Once their alleged Settlement failed, they had no legal basis to retain possession.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s judgment dated 9 January 2026.
It affirmed the decree declaring Leela Wati’s rights and granting her possession and permanent injunction against the defendants. The Trial Court’s refusal to grant mandatory injunction regarding certain articles for want of evidence was also left undisturbed.
The Regular First Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The appellants were granted three months from the date of the High Court judgment to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to Leela Wati.
Case Details
Case: Mangal Singh & Anr. v. Leela Wati
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: RFA 264/2026
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: 11 August 2026
Result: Regular First Appeal dismissed; decree for declaration, possession and permanent injunction affirmed; appellants granted three months to hand over peaceful and vacant possession.
