The Bombay High Court has clarified that a party cannot claim protection of possession through injunction based on a lease executed by an unauthorized power of attorney holder, even if in physical possession. The judgment reinforces that settled possession alone is insufficient without lawful entitlement, particularly against a registered transferee of the true owner.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on a piece of agricultural land in Jamner, Jalgaon, originally owned by three brothers: Zahir Khan Umar Khan, Kabir Khan Umar Khan, and Bashir Khan Umar Khan. The respondent, Soheil Javed Khaliloddin Kazi, claims possession over the property based on a lease agreement dated 04.09.1997, allegedly executed by Muzafar Iqbal Kazi, who purportedly held a power of attorney from Zahir Khan. The petitioner, Siddiqui Irfana Owes Ahmad, acquired a 1/3rd share of the property through a registered sale deed executed by Mr. Anwar s/o Kabir Khan on 15.03.2020 and seeks to take possession, leading to the present litigation.
Key Facts
- The suit property is jointly owned by three brothers, each holding a 1/3rd share.
- The respondent claims possession since 1997 under a lease agreement allegedly executed by Muzafar Iqbal Kazi, who was appointed as power of attorney holder by Zahir Khan.
- The power of attorney, dated 1996, was executed by Zahir Khan while residing in the USA, authorizing Muzafar Iqbal to protect the property against encroachers and trespassers.
- The lease agreement dated 04.09.1997 was for a term of 11 years and was not registered.
- The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.124 of 2015 against the three co-owners seeking perpetual injunction and declaration of his tenancy rights, but no interim injunction was granted in that suit.
- The respondent did not pursue the 2015 suit actively; it remains pending.
- The petitioner purchased his share via a registered sale deed dated 15.03.2020, with explicit terms for delivery of possession.
- Revenue records (7/12 extract) showed the respondent’s name in possession from 2004 to 2015, but no updated entry confirmed possession at the time of filing the present suit.
- A spot inspection by revenue authorities on 14.11.2022 was relied upon by the lower courts to infer possession.
Procedural History
- 04.09.1997: Lease agreement allegedly executed by Muzafar Iqbal Kazi in favor of respondent.
- 15.03.2020: Petitioner acquires 1/3rd share via registered sale deed from co-owner Anwar s/o Kabir Khan.
- 2015: Respondent files Regular Civil Suit No.124 of 2015 against the three co-owners seeking perpetual injunction and declaration of tenancy rights.
- 2023: Respondent files Regular Civil Suit No.176 of 2023 against the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction and temporary injunction.
- 16.11.2024: Civil Judge (J.D.), Jamner, grants temporary injunction in favor of respondent (Exhibit-6).
- 28.04.2025: District Judge, Jalgaon, dismisses Misc. Civil Appeal No.56 of 2024 and upholds the temporary injunction.
- 2025: Writ Petition No.8428 of 2025 filed before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
- 17.06.2026: Final order passed by the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Respondent (Plaintiff): Claims lawful possession since 1997 under a lease agreement executed by Muzafar Iqbal, who was authorized by Zahir Khan. Argues that his long-standing physical possession, supported by revenue records, entitles him to protection under the law. Asserts that the petitioner, as a purchaser, cannot evict him without due process.
Petitioner (Defendant): Contends that Muzafar Iqbal had no authority under the power of attorney to lease the property. The power of attorney was limited to protection against encroachers, not creation of third-party interests. The lease is unregistered and expired in 2008. The petitioner holds a registered sale deed and is the lawful owner of a 1/3rd share.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the orders dated 16.11.2024 and 28.04.2025 granting temporary injunction, and dissolution of the injunction restraining him from taking possession of his share of the property.
The Legal Issue
Can a party claim protection of possession through temporary injunction against a registered transferee of a co-owner, based solely on an unregistered lease executed by a power of attorney holder who lacked authority to create third-party interests?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the power of attorney granted to Muzafar Iqbal was strictly limited to protecting the property from encroachers and trespassers. It did not authorize leasing, transfer, or creation of any interest in favor of third parties. The lease agreement dated 04.09.1997 was unregistered, expired in 2008, and could not confer any enforceable right. The respondent’s reliance on revenue entries was misplaced, as they were not updated and did not reflect lawful possession. The petitioner, as a registered purchaser, had superior title and the right to possession. The lower courts erred in granting injunction without examining the validity of the lease or the scope of the power of attorney.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that he had been in continuous, peaceful, and open possession of the property since 1997, which entitled him to protection under the principle that even an encroacher cannot be dispossessed without due process. He argued that the power of attorney, though not explicitly authorizing lease, was general in nature and allowed Muzafar Iqbal to manage the property. The revenue records and long possession were sufficient to establish a prima facie case for injunction. The petitioner’s purchase was subject to existing rights of the respondent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the power of attorney document and the lease agreement. It found that the power of attorney executed by Zahir Khan explicitly authorized Muzafar Iqbal to "protect the rights and interests of the landowner against encroachers, trespassers or illegal occupants." There was no language authorizing leasing, transfer, or creation of third-party interests. The Court held that any act beyond the scope of the power of attorney is ultra vires and void.
"On the basis of said power of attorney holder, he could not have executed lease in favor of third person and handed over possession thereof to anyone."
The Court further noted that the lease agreement was for 11 years and expired in 2008. No renewal was produced. Under the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act, a lease exceeding one year must be registered to be admissible in evidence. The unregistered lease could not be relied upon to establish any legal right.
The Court rejected the reliance on revenue records (7/12 extract) and the spot inspection of 14.11.2022, observing that such entries are not conclusive proof of title or lawful possession. The respondent had previously filed a suit in 2015 against the true owners and failed to obtain even an interim injunction, indicating the weakness of his claim.
The Court cited Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249 to emphasize that courts must discourage frivolous litigation by denying incentives to parties who cannot establish a prima facie case. It also relied on Mulji Umershi Shah v. Paradisia Builders Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 3 Mh.L.J. 532, which held that inquiry into title and right is not foreign to the adjudication of injunction applications.
The Court concluded that the respondent had no lawful possession, no valid lease, and no enforceable right against the petitioner, who held a registered sale deed. The lower courts mechanically accepted possession without examining the foundational validity of the claim.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 16.11.2024 and 28.04.2025 granting temporary injunction are set aside. The injunction restraining the petitioner from taking possession of his 1/3rd share of the suit property is dissolved. The petitioner is entitled to immediate possession of his share, subject to any lawful rights of other co-owners. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Lawful Possession Requires Valid Title or Authority
- Practitioners must establish that possession is not merely physical but legally rooted in a valid title, lease, or license.
- Long-term possession alone, without lawful authority, cannot sustain an injunction against a registered owner.
- Revenue records are not conclusive proof of title or lawful possession in civil disputes.
Power of Attorney Must Be Strictly Construed
- Any act beyond the express terms of a power of attorney is void ab initio.
- General phrases like "manage the property" or "protect interests" do not imply authority to lease, sell, or create third-party interests.
- Courts will examine the exact wording of the power of attorney and not infer implied powers.
Injunctions Against True Owners Require Prima Facie Right
- A plaintiff seeking injunction against a registered transferee must demonstrate a better right to possession.
- Failure to obtain interim relief in a prior suit against the true owner weakens the claim in a subsequent suit against a purchaser.
- Courts must not grant injunctions based on mechanical acceptance of possession without probing the source of the claim.
