The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that a plaintiff with an unchallenged registered sale deed can obtain summary possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, even when the defendant claims ancestral or joint family rights. The judgment clarifies that mere assertions of joint ownership, without challenging the title deed, do not create a triable issue.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on possession of Flat No. 136, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi. Respondents Bhavesh Madan and Reetu Madan are registered owners of the property under a Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009. Appellants Anju Chadha and Virender Chadha, the sister and brother-in-law of Bhavesh Madan, have been residing in the flat since 2015. The respondents filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, damages, and mesne profits, seeking eviction of the appellants.
Key Facts
- The Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009 was executed in favor of the respondents, with Anju Chadha as an attesting witness.
- The appellants never challenged the validity, execution, or title conveyed by the Sale Deed in any proceeding prior to this suit.
- The appellants initially stayed in the flat as guests in January 2020, following the mother’s illness, and remained after her death on 17.06.2020.
- On 10.09.2020, the respondents terminated the license to occupy and demanded vacating the property.
- On 29.09.2020, the appellants received jewelry belonging to the deceased mother, with an understanding they would vacate.
- On 22.11.2020, the appellants began removing furniture from the flat, prompting a police complaint.
- The appellants claim the property was purchased from joint family funds and is part of ancestral property.
- The appellants assert a family settlement existed whereby the property was to be gifted to Anju Chadha.
- The appellants paid utility bills (electricity, maintenance, etc.) from 2015 onwards, including depositing bills via bank transfer on 25.06.2020.
- The appellants filed CS(OS) 432/2021 before the same court seeking partition of the property, but did not seek cancellation of the Sale Deed.
Procedural History
- 20.11.2009: Sale Deed executed in favor of respondents, with Anju Chadha as attesting witness.
- January 2020: Appellants arrive in India and move into the flat.
- 17.06.2020: Mother of parties dies.
- 10.09.2020: Respondents demand vacating the property.
- 22.11.2020: Police complaint lodged after appellants removed furniture.
- 29.09.2020: Jewelry handed over to Anju Chadha.
- 05.05.2022: Respondents file Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for summary decree.
- 18.12.2023: Additional District Judge grants summary decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, directing appellants to vacate within 30 days.
- 15.01.2026: Appeal reserved.
- 07.04.2026: Judgment pronounced by Delhi High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Respondents (Plaintiffs): Claim exclusive ownership through registered Sale Deed. Assert that appellants are mere licensees with no legal right to remain. Argue that no challenge to the Sale Deed was ever made, and the defense of joint family ownership is irrelevant to a possession suit.
Appellants (Defendants): Claim the property was purchased from joint family funds and is ancestral property. Assert a family settlement existed whereby the property was to be gifted to Anju Chadha. Argue that the suit is maintainable only after partition and that the trial court erred in granting summary decree without allowing evidence.
Relief Sought
The respondents sought: (1) Mandatory injunction to vacate the property; (2) Permanent injunction against interference; (3) Mesne profits of Rs. 1,00,000 from 29.09.2020 to filing of suit at Rs. 50,000/month; (4) Further damages of Rs. 50,000/month with 12% interest during pendency and future period; and (5) Costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits a summary decree for possession when the defendant admits the plaintiff’s title through an unchallenged registered sale deed, but raises a collateral claim of joint family ownership or family settlement.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants contended that the trial court erred in granting summary decree because a triable issue existed regarding the source of funds for the property’s purchase. They relied on K.V. Naarayanaswami Iyer v. I.V. Ramakrishna Iyer and Mallapa Girimallapa Betgeri v. R.Yellappagouda Patil, arguing that where joint family funds were used, the property is presumed to be joint family property unless proven otherwise. They asserted that the family settlement and the pending partition suit (CS(OS) 432/2021) raised genuine factual disputes requiring evidence. They further argued that the trial court improperly relied on Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernande v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, which they claimed was inapplicable.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the appellants had never challenged the registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009, despite being present at its execution. They emphasized that the mere assertion of joint family ownership, without disputing the title deed, cannot create a triable issue under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. They cited Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernande v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira to support that possession cannot be denied merely because of a claim of co-ownership. They further noted that the partition suit, while pending, did not seek cancellation of the Sale Deed and thus could not override the registered title.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the defense raised in the Written Statement and found it to be a collateral claim, not a direct challenge to the plaintiff’s title. The appellants admitted the Sale Deed was executed and registered in favor of the respondents, and that Anju Chadha had attested it. The Court held that such an admission, coupled with the absence of any plea to set aside or invalidate the deed, leaves no room for a triable issue.
"The only defence which has been set up by the Appellant’s is that in fact there were joint businesses being conducted by their father, sons and other family members and that the funds for purchasing the Flat had been mobilised by the parents and it was a Joint Family property in which the Plaintiff cannot assert his exclusive rights."
The Court distinguished between a claim of ownership and a claim of possession. It held that even if the appellants could prove the property was purchased from joint family funds, that would not negate the respondents’ title under the Sale Deed. The Court emphasized that the Benami Transactions Act does not operate to invalidate a registered sale deed in favor of a named purchaser.
The Court further noted that the family settlement, even if proven, is a separate cause of action and must be pursued in the pending partition suit. It cannot be used as a defense in a possession suit based on a registered title. The Court observed:
"The Appellants are at liberty to take all these grounds in that Suit, to establish their claim on the basis of Family Settlement or the suit property having being put in the common hotch-potch, by the Plaintiff/Respondent."
The Court rejected the appellants’ reliance on Pawan Kumar v. Babulal and G. Tuhin Kumar v. State Bank of India, clarifying that those cases dealt with preliminary objections under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, not summary decrees under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Court held that the trial judge correctly applied the principle that where the plaintiff’s title is unchallenged and the defendant’s defense is collateral, a summary decree is appropriate.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Delhi High Court upheld the order dated 18.12.2023 of the Additional District Judge, directing the appellants to vacate the Suit Property within 30 days. The Court affirmed the decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the respondents’ unchallenged registered title extinguished any claim of joint family ownership or family settlement as a defense to possession. Costs of Rs. 50,000 were awarded to the respondents.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Unchallenged Title Trumps Collateral Claims
- Practitioners must now argue that any defense based on joint family ownership, family settlement, or source of funds is irrelevant if the plaintiff’s title via registered deed is unchallenged.
- A defendant cannot delay possession by raising ancillary claims in a summary proceeding.
Order XII Rule 6 CPC Is a Powerful Tool for Title-Based Possession
- A plaintiff with a registered sale deed and no challenge to it can seek summary decree without waiting for a full trial.
- Courts will not permit defendants to use partition suits as a shield to retain possession when title is clear.
Family Settlements Must Be Asserted in Proper Forum
-
Claims based on family settlements must be raised in partition suits or suits for declaration, not in possession suits.
-
Evidence of family arrangements cannot be used to defeat a registered title in a summary proceeding.
-
Always verify whether the defendant has challenged the title deed in writing or through a separate suit.
-
If no challenge exists, move immediately for summary decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
-
Do not confuse claims of possession with claims of ownership - the former can be decided summarily; the latter requires full trial.
