The Delhi High Court affirmed the plaintiff’s absolute ownership of a lease-hold property, dismissed the brother’s appeal, and upheld the decree for possession and mesne profits, thereby clarifying the interplay of licence relationships, limitation periods and the doctrine of adverse possession.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Kasturi Lal Sehgal, filed a civil suit (CS DJ No. 34/2020) seeking possession, a permanent injunction and mesne profits of Rs.50,000 per month from his brother, Mohan Lal Sehgal, over Property No. 1042, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
Key Facts
- Late Sh. Atma Ram Sehgal, father of the parties, was allotted Property No. 191-192-F, Outram Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, and died on 22.07.1974.
- All legal heirs executed a registered Relinquishment Deed on 08.08.1974 in favour of the plaintiff.
- The government allotted the suit property (No. 1042) to the plaintiff on a lease-hold basis via Lease Deed dated 03.02.1977, premium Rs.21,000 for 99 years starting 10.02.1971.
- Plaintiff obtained a registered Conveyance Deed on 30.09.1999 in his name.
- Defendant was permitted to reside in the rear portion of the suit property (ground, first and second floors) from 1977 as a licencee, without any licence fee.
- On 02.06.2017 the defendant issued a notice claiming ownership of the suit property.
- Plaintiff replied on 12.07.2017, revoked the licence and demanded mesne profits of Rs.50,000 per month from 01.09.2017.
- The suit was filed in 2020; issues were framed on 06.06.2022.
- The trial court decreed possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 23.09.2023, holding the plaintiff as absolute owner.
- The defendant appealed (RFA 955/2023); the appeal was heard and decided on 03.08.2026.
Procedural History
- 22.07.1974: Death of Sh. Atma Ram Sehgal.
- 08.08.1974: Execution of Relinquishment Deed in favour of plaintiff.
- 03.02.1977: Lease Deed allocating suit property to plaintiff.
- 30.09.1999: Conveyance Deed executed in plaintiff’s favour.
- 02.06.2017: Defendant’s notice asserting ownership.
- 12.07.2017: Plaintiff’s reply revoking licence and demanding mesne profits.
- 2020: Civil Suit CS DJ No. 34/2020 filed.
- 06.06.2022: Issues framed by the trial court.
- 23.09.2023: Trial court decree for possession and mesne profits.
- 25.05.2026: Appeal (RFA 955/2023) reserved.
- 03.08.2026: Appeal decided, dismissing the appellant.
Parties' Positions
- Plaintiff argued that the Relinquishment Deed and subsequent Conveyance Deed transferred absolute ownership to him; the defendant was only a permissive occupant whose licence was revoked on 12.07.2017.
- Defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation (limitation expired on 12.08.1986), that he had acquired ownership by adverse possession after more than 40 years of occupation, and that the property remained joint family property.
Relief Sought
- Plaintiff: decree for possession, mesne profits of Rs.50,000 per month from 01.09.2017, permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating third-party interests, and costs.
- Defendant: set aside the decree, declare the suit barred by limitation, and claim ownership by adverse possession.
Case Details
Mohan Lal Sehgal v. Kasturi Lal Sehgal
Court
Delhi High Court
Date
03 August 2026
Case Number
RFA 955/2023
Bench
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Counsel
Pet: Rakesh Kumar, Gaurav Pachauri, Tamanna Jangra
Res: Rahul Rai, Shekhar Mehla
Frequently Asked Questions
The claimant must prove possession that is nec vi, nec clam, nec precario - i.e., peaceful, open and continuous, hostile to the true owner, and must satisfy the statutory period of twelve years as explained in Karnataka Board of Wakf and Ravinder Kaur Grewal.
Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period begins when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff’s title. If the possession is permissive or licenced, the period does not start.
No. As held in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and reiterated by this Court, a permissive occupant, even if a relative, cannot acquire title by adverse possession because the possession is not hostile.
