The Delhi High Court has held that registered title documents like a conveyance deed constitute unimpeachable evidence of ownership and create a strong presumption of title, which cannot be displaced by mere oral assertions of joint funds without contemporaneous documentary proof. The Court, therefore, upheld the decree of possession and mesne profits in favour of the Plaintiff, as well as the dismissal of the Defendant’s counter-claim.
The Court explained that the burden to prove that a property was acquired with joint family funds lies on the party making the claim. The claimant must establish the existence of a sufficient joint family nucleus capable of funding the acquisition; the mere existence of a Joint Hindu Family does not automatically render all properties as joint family properties.
While an oral family settlement is legally permissible, the Court said that its existence must be proved by cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence demonstrating consensus ad idem, acceptance, and implementation by the parties. An unsubstantiated oral plea cannot override duly executed title documents.
Thus, a licensee, whose possession is permissive, is obligated to surrender possession upon the termination of the license. It is not open to a licensee to set up a title in himself in a suit for recovery of possession instituted after the license is revoked, added the Court, while adding that a defence based on a right in respect of property held benami is prohibited under Section 4 of the Benami Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the Plaintiff had conclusively proved his title through unimpeachable evidence like the perpetual lease deed, conveyance deed, and other statutory records, all exclusively in his name. In contrast, the Defendant’s claim of ownership was a “mere bald assertion” unsupported by any title document or credible evidence.
The Bench noted that no bank statements, vouchers, or receipts were produced to evidence any contribution from the Defendant or their father. The plea of oral family settlements was also rejected as no written memorandum or corroborative evidence was produced, and the Defendant’s failure to seek enforcement for over three decades was deemed inconsistent with the existence of any such arrangement.
The Defendant’s claim of having exclusively constructed the first and second floors was found to be “wholly unsupported by cogent and credible evidence.” The Bench observed that apart from a single receipt for 200 bags of cement, no construction bills, contractor agreements, or bank statements were produced to substantiate the expenditure.
The Bench pointed out that the defence raised by the Defendant was barred by Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and observed that the Defendant’s claim to be the “real owner” could not be allowed, as there was a “conspicuous absence of any specific pleading or evidence establishing the existence of a fiduciary relationship” that would bring the case within the statutory exception.
Lastly, the Bench noted that the Defendant had admitted to permissive occupation, which constitutes a license. Such permissive possession can never mature into adverse possession. The suit, having been filed in November 2006 after the license was revoked in October 2006, was held to be well within the period of limitation.
Briefly, the Plaintiff, the registered owner of the Suit Property, initially acquired through a perpetual lease from the MCD in 1971 and later converted to freehold in his name in 2011. He contended that he allowed his elder brother, the Defendant, to occupy the first floor and parts of the second floor purely out of natural love and affection, creating a license without any consideration. The Plaintiff revoked this oral license in September 2006 and, upon the Defendant’s failure to vacate, issued a legal notice, before instituting the suit for possession and mesne profits.
The Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s exclusive ownership, asserting that the property was purchased from joint funds at the instance of their father. He claimed that while the ground floor was built with joint funds, the first and second floors were constructed solely by him under a family arrangement that these floors would belong to him exclusively. The Defendant filed a counter-claim seeking a declaration of ownership over the first and second floors and a mandatory injunction against the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff produced the perpetual lease deed, conveyance deed, occupancy certificate, and house tax records, all in his name. The Defendant relied on a partnership deed, a passbook for a joint account, and the testimony of twenty witnesses, but failed to produce documentary proof of his financial contribution to the property’s purchase or construction, or any written evidence of the alleged family settlement.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Anil Sapra, along with Advocates Amrit Pal S. Gambhir and Dalip Mehra, for the Appellant
Senior Advocate Ashish Mohan and Advocate Manisha Singh, for the Respondent
