Recently, the Delhi High Court dealt with a bitter family property battle where a sister sought to resist eviction from a flat owned by her brother by claiming rights flowing from joint family funds and long years of residence in the property. Refusing to accept these claims in the absence of any challenge to the registered Sale Deed, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made it clear that continued occupation of a family property, however longstanding, cannot by itself create ownership rights when the documentary title stands exclusively in another person’s name.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a family property dispute concerning possession and ownership rights over a residential flat in Delhi. The Respondents instituted a suit for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, and damages under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking eviction of the Appellants, who were the sister and brother-in-law of the plaintiff, from the suit property. According to the Respondents, the Appellants were permitted to stay temporarily in the flat due to family circumstances and continued to occupy the premises even after the permission was withdrawn. The Appellants, however, resisted eviction by claiming that the property had been purchased from joint family funds generated through longstanding family businesses and formed part of the joint family assets. They also relied upon an alleged family settlement and asserted long-standing possession over the property. Since the property stood exclusively in the plaintiffs’ names through a registered Sale Deed which was never challenged, the Trial Court decreed possession in favour of the plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, leading to the present appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellants argued that the Trial Court had wrongly adjudicated issues relating to title in a simpliciter possession suit while ignoring the Appellant’s claim that the property had been purchased using joint family funds. The Counsel contended that the Respondents themselves admitted the existence of family businesses and common family assets, thereby raising a triable issue regarding ownership. The Appellant further argued that where a joint family possesses sufficient nucleus for the acquisition of property, a presumption arises that the property forms part of the joint family assets unless proved otherwise. Also, the Counsel submitted that the alleged family settlement and their long-standing possession required a full trial and could not have been summarily rejected under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Respondents argued that the Appellants had no legally sustainable defence because the registered sale deed unequivocally established exclusive ownership of the plaintiffs. The Counsel submitted that the Appellants had admitted the existence of the sale deed and, significantly, had never challenged its validity in any proceedings, including the pending partition suit. The Respondents contended that mere assertions regarding joint family funds or prolonged residence in the property could not defeat the documentary title. The Counsel further argued that the Appellants were merely permissive occupants whose licence had been terminated, and therefore no triable issue survived, warranting a full-fledged trial.
Observation of the Court:
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “The family may have had some family businesses and there may be assets in the name of the family business or acquired from the funds of family business, but this is one property which is the exclusive property of the Plaintiff, as is evident from the Sale Deed. The parents of the parties may have lived in the said premises during their life time and that the Defendant No.1 being the sister, may have also come to live in the Flat while the parents were alive and may have continued even thereafter, but they cannot claim any ownership rights in the Suit property.”
The Court observed that the registered Sale Deed stood exclusively in the name of the Respondents and remained completely unchallenged despite the Appellants being fully aware of its existence since its execution. The Bench noted that Appellant herself was an attesting witness to the Sale Deed, which clearly established that she had knowledge of the transaction from the very beginning. The Court emphasised that although the appellants repeatedly asserted that the property had been purchased from joint family funds, they had never sought cancellation of the Sale Deed in any proceedings, including the pending partition suit. According to the Court, once the documentary title remained unquestioned, vague assertions regarding family funding or ancestral business could not dilute the respondents’ ownership rights.
The Bench observed that mere residence in a family property or continued occupation due to familial relations does not create any legal ownership rights in immovable property. The Court noted that the appellants were initially permitted to stay in the flat out of compassion and family considerations, especially during the old age of the parties’ mother and the COVID-19 lockdown period. However, permissive possession, even if prolonged, cannot automatically mature into ownership or co-ownership rights in the absence of any legally enforceable document. The Court further clarified that the emotional or practical use of the premises by family members cannot override the legal effect of a registered title document.
The Court further observed that the Appellant’s reliance on an alleged family settlement and claims regarding joint family properties were issues already pending adjudication in a separate partition suit between the parties. The Bench held that such claims could not be imported into a simpliciter possession suit to defeat the Respondent’s immediate right to recover possession on the strength of the Sale Deed. The Court clarified that the Appellants remained free to establish their alleged rights in the pending partition proceedings, including any plea relating to common hotchpotch or family arrangement. However, until such rights were judicially established, the registered ownership of the respondents could not be displaced.
The Bench also held that the Trial Court had rightly exercised powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC because the written statement disclosed no genuine triable issue requiring a full-fledged trial. The Court observed that there was a “clear unambiguous and unequivocal admission” regarding the Sale Deed being in the name of the respondents and no challenge whatsoever to its validity. The Bench emphasised that courts are empowered to pass decrees on admissions where the defence raised is merely illusory or intended to prolong occupation of the property without any substantive legal basis. According to the Court, the appellants’ defence was insufficient to defeat the respondents’ possessory rights flowing from the registered Sale Deed.
The decision of the Court:
Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decree directing the Appellants to vacate the property and dismissed the appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. The Court reaffirmed that where ownership of immovable property is supported by an unchallenged registered sale deed, mere long-term occupation, family use, or allegations of joint family funding do not create ownership rights or constitute a valid defence against eviction.
Case Title: Ms. Anju Chadha and Anr. Vs. Bhavesh Madan and Ors.
Case No.: RFA 70/2024, CM APPL. 5115/2024
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Rishi Bharadwaj
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Rajesh Mahindru, Adv. Birender Chaudhary
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
