The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that mere recital of symbolic possession in sale deeds, without evidence of actual physical control, cannot override longstanding possession by a claimant raising triable issues of benami ownership and testamentary validity. This ruling reinforces the threshold for interim relief in property disputes where procedural irregularities and conflicting claims exist.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, a husband, claims he purchased a property using his own funds but registered it in the name of his wife, Smt. Alka Srivastav, for convenience, making it a benami transaction. He asserts continuous possession since purchase, including leasing a portion to M/s Surjivan Health Resort Pvt. Ltd. via a lease deed dated 23.08.2022. After his wife’s death in June 2024, her children - defendants No.1 and 2 - obtained mutation of the property based on a Will dated 27.07.2023, which the plaintiff challenges as invalid due to his wife’s alleged unsound mental condition and suspicious circumstances. Within months, defendants No.1 and 2 sold the property to defendant No.3, a corporate entity, via three registered sale deeds recording only "symbolic possession" on an "as is where is" basis.
Procedural History
- January 2025: Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration, cancellation of Will, mutation, sale deeds, and permanent injunction.
- March 2025: Trial Court granted interim injunction restraining alienation and dispossession.
- October 2025: Additional District Judge dismissed defendant No.3’s appeal, upholding the injunction.
- January 2026: Defendant No.3 filed revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Relief Sought
The plaintiff sought preservation of status quo through interim injunction until final adjudication of ownership, validity of the Will, and legality of mutation and sale deeds.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether symbolic possession recorded in sale deeds, without evidence of actual physical control, is sufficient to defeat a claimant’s prima facie case of longstanding possession and raise a triable issue under the triple test for temporary injunction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner (Defendant No.3)
Defendant No.3 contended that the property stood exclusively in the name of Smt. Alka Srivastav under a registered sale deed dated 31.10.2000, conferring absolute ownership. Relying on the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, it argued that statutory presumption in favor of the wife’s ownership could not be rebutted without credible evidence. It further asserted that the Will was valid, registered, and legally operative, entitling defendants No.1 and 2 to transfer the property. Defendant No.3 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, having conducted due diligence and paid ₹18.94 crores. It contended that the plaintiff had previously admitted in other proceedings to being only a tenant, thereby estopping him from claiming ownership.
For the Respondent (Plaintiff)
The plaintiff argued that the sale deeds explicitly recorded only "symbolic possession," negating any claim of actual control by defendant No.3. He presented the lease deed and other circumstantial evidence to establish continuous possession. He challenged the validity of the Will, citing lack of notice to him during mutation and the hasty succession of transactions - mutation to heirs, then sale to defendant No.3 - all occurring within weeks of his wife’s death. He emphasized that the courts below correctly applied the triple test for injunction, finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and risk of irreparable injury.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction is narrowly confined to correcting perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error - not re-appreciating evidence. It noted that two courts below had independently applied the triple test for temporary injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
"Mere payment of consideration or execution of sale deeds, by itself, does not establish possession, particularly when the very documents relied upon by the petitioner record only symbolic possession."
The Court observed that defendant No.3, a corporate entity, produced no resolution, contemporaneous record, or witness testimony to prove actual assumption of possession. In contrast, the plaintiff’s lease deed and long-standing physical control created a prima facie case of possession that could not be dismissed at the interim stage.
Regarding the benami claim, the Court held that while the Benami Act creates a statutory presumption, it does not extinguish the right to prove contrary intent through evidence. The source of funds and nature of transaction remain triable issues.
The Court further found the sequence of transactions - mutation without notice to the husband, followed by rapid sale and re-mutation - raised serious questions about the bona fides of defendant No.3. The absence of due diligence in the face of known familial claims undermined the claim of being a bona fide purchaser.
The Court concluded that the lower courts did not err in preserving status quo pending trial. Interference would amount to substituting factual appreciation, which is impermissible in revision.
The Verdict
The plaintiff won. The Court held that symbolic possession alone cannot override established possession and that triable issues regarding benami ownership and testamentary validity justify interim protection under the triple test. The interim injunction was upheld during pendency of the suit.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Symbolic Possession Is Not Actual Possession
- Practitioners must prove actual physical control, not just recitals in sale deeds, to establish possession for injunction purposes.
- Corporate purchasers must produce resolutions, site inspection reports, or occupancy records to substantiate possession claims.
- Courts will not accept mere registration or payment as proof of possession where prior possession exists.
Benami Claims Survive at Interim Stage
- The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 creates a rebuttable presumption, not conclusive proof.
- Evidence of funding source, intent, and control must be examined at trial; such issues cannot be summarily dismissed at interim stage.
- Plaintiffs may rely on circumstantial evidence - including leases, tax payments, and long-term occupation - to establish benami status.
Due Diligence Must Be Substantive, Not Formal
- A purchaser claiming bona fide status must demonstrate meaningful inquiry into occupancy, familial claims, and procedural compliance.
- Rapid mutation and sale after death, especially without notice to the surviving spouse, raise red flags that courts will not ignore.
- Courts will scrutinize transactional timelines and procedural irregularities as indicators of mala fide intent.
