The Delhi High Court has dismissed two connected regular first appeals, holding the decree of possession, mesne profits, and permanent injunction passed in favour of Praveen Chawla in respect of property bearing No. B-25A, Vijay Nagar, Delhi. The Court held that long possession under a family arrangement or licence does not create ownership rights in the absence of title.
The dispute concerned property bearing No. B-25A, Vijay Nagar, Delhi. The respondent had instituted a suit for possession, mesne profits, and permanent injunction, asserting exclusive ownership of the property. The appellant claimed ownership over a portion of the property on the ground that it was Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property allotted to the family after Partition, and alternatively relied on an oral partition, a Will, and an Agreement dated September 24, 1996.
The Bench, comprising Justice Mini Pushkarna, examined the factual and documentary record in detail. The Court noted that the original allotment of the property in 1950 only conferred a right of occupation on rental basis and did not create ownership rights. Ownership vested only later, when a Perpetual Lease Deed was executed in 1971 in favour of the respondent’s father, followed by a registered Conveyance Deed in 1999 in favour of the respondent, after other legal heirs executed a release deed relinquishing their shares.
The High Court rejected the appellant’s plea that the property was HUF property, holding that the burden to prove existence of an HUF and joint family nucleus was not discharged. The Court further observed that the Agreement dated September 24, 1996 expressly recognised the respondent as owner and allowed the appellant to occupy a portion of the property only during his lifetime, with no rights accruing to his legal heirs. The contemporaneous Will executed in favour of the appellant was also held to be ineffective, as a Will does not operate during the lifetime of the testator and, in any event, had been validly cancelled in 2009.
The Court held that the Agreement constituted a revocable licence and did not create any interest in the property. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to revoke the licence and seek possession. The plea of limitation was also rejected, with the Court holding that the cause of action arose only after cancellation of the Will in 2009 and revocation of the licence in 2010.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decree directing delivery of possession, payment of damages at ₹5,000 per month with interest, and grant of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from creating third-party rights. The appeals were dismissed, and the respondent was held entitled to release of the decretal amount deposited in court.
Appearance:
For Appellant: Advocate Naresh K. Daksh.
For Respondent: Advocate Charu Sharma and Nishant Nain.
