Amar Bahadur Singh & Anr. vs Ram Pati Devi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Reserved on: 31 August, 2026
th
% Pronounced on: 08 September, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 08 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010321532026
+ RFA 704/2026, CM APPL. 46665/2026, CM APPL. 46666/2026,
CM APPL. 46667/2026, CM APPL. 46668/2026
1. AMAR BAHADUR SINGH
S/o Sh. Ram Dulare Singh,
K-93A, Gali No. 52,
Shahadatpur Extension
Karawal Nagar
Delhi- 110094 ......Appellant No. 1
2. SITARA DEVI
W/o Sh. Amar Bahadur Singh,
K-93A. Gali No. 52
Shahadatpur Extension
Karawal Nagar
Delhi- 110094 ......Appellant No. 2
Through: Mr. Amit Verma, Advocate.
versus
RAM PATI DEVI
W/o Sh. Ram Dulare Singh
R/o K-93A, Gali No. 52
Shahadatpur Extension
Karawal Nagar
Delhi-110094
Permanent Address:
Village Sujakhar (Dewan Ganj)
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 1 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
P.O. Beni Madhav Nagar
P.S. Sangipur
Tehsil Lalganj Ajhgara
District Pratapgarh (U.P.) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.K. Pandey and Ms. Akanksha
Pandey, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with
Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the
Appellants/Defendants , against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2026 ,
whereby the Suit bearing CS No.58/2016 , filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff,
Smt. Ram Pati Devi , for Possession and Permanent Injunction in respect
of property bearing No. K-93A, Gali No.52, Khasra No.27/23/2,
Shahadatpur Extension, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094 (hereinafter
referred to as the “suit property” ), has been decreed by the learned District
Judge.
2. The facts in brief are that the Plaintiff, Smt. Ram Pati Devi , is the
mother of Defendant No.1, Sh. Amar Bahadur Singh , while Defendant
No.2, Smt. Sitara Devi , is his wife and the daughter-in-law of the Plaintiff.
3. The case of the Plaintiff was that her husband, Late Sh. Ram Dulare
Singh, was employed with MTNL and from his hard-earned savings, had
purchased the suit property in her name, on the basis of the General Power
of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will and Receipt, all dated 01.11.1996 ,
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 2 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
from one Sh. Umed Singh Rawat .
4. The Defendant No.1, and Defendant No.2, being her son and
daughter-in-law, had been permitted to reside in a portion of the suit
property purely on account of their family relationship and had no
independent right, title or interest therein. According to her, she was
residing on the Ground Floor of the suit property comprising of one room,
kitchen and one shop , while one room on the Ground Floor and one
room and kitchen on the First Floor, were in possession of the
Defendants, as shown in red colour in the Site Plan. Though the Defendants
were no longer actually residing in the suit property, they had continued to
retain their locks over the aforesaid portions.
5. The Plaintiff claimed that owing to their harassment and conduct ,
she had severed all relations with them and had asked them to vacate the suit
property in their possession. However, the Defendants allegedly failed to do
so and continued to interfere with the peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit
property by the Plaintiff and her husband.
6. Defendant No.1, in collusion with Defendant No.2, subsequently
prepared forged and fabricated documents dated 12.01.2003 , purporting to
transfer the suit property in his favour, for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- .
7. It was asserted that Defendant No.1 was financially dependent upon
the Plaintiff and her husband and was not in a position to pay the aforesaid
consideration, at the relevant time. It was also specifically pleaded that
12.01.2003 was a Sunday , which according to the Plaintiff, further
demonstrated that the documents relied upon by Defendant No.1, were false
and fabricated.
8. The Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant No.1 had taken a signed
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 3 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
cheque belonging to her husband and on 02.07.2013, had gotten an amount
of Rs.50,000/- transferred from the Account of her husband, into his own
Account.
9. On account of the disputes between the parties, the Plaintiff filed a
Complaint to Police Station Khajuri Khas in August, 2013 . She also filed
a written Complaint dated 04.10.2013 to BSES Yamuna Power Limited , in
regard to the electricity connection sought by Defendant No.1, in respect of
the suit property.
10. In the meanwhile, Defendant No.1 had instituted Civil Suit
No.219/2013 against the Plaintiff, which was eventually disposed of as
satisfied, vide Order dated 18.11.2015.
11. Although in the said Suit, while deciding the Application under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC , the Learned Civil
Judge observed in the Order dated 02.12.2013 that the documents relied
upon by Defendant No.1, allegedly executed in the year 2003, were
unregistered and his claim of purchase of the suit property, was prima
facie hit by Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, his
claim to ownership was held to be under serious doubt and the Injunction
sought against creation of third-party rights, was declined.
12. The Plaintiff also asserted that she had filed a Complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. against Defendant No.1 and FIR No.568/2014 had
been registered against the Defendants on 06.06.2014, at Police Station
Khajuri Khas. She further relied upon another Complaint dated 04.12.2014 ,
made by her against the Defendants, before Police Station Khajuri Khas.
13. Consequently, on 25.01.2016 , the Plaintiff instituted the present Suit
seeking Possession of the suit property and Permanent Injunction for
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 4 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
restraining the defendants from causing interference in the peaceful
enjoyment of the suit property by the Plaintiff and her family members.
14. The Defendants in their Written Statement , asserted that
Defendant No.1 had started earning at an early age and had been working as
an Electrician, since the year 1991-92 , from which he was earning a
handsome income.
15. According to Defendant No.1, when the suit property was purchased
in the year 1996-97 , his father was employed with MTNL, but was not
financially capable of purchasing the property from his salary . His father,
therefore, asked Defendant No.1 to contribute Rs.1,50,000/- , which was paid
by him towards the purchase of the suit property, which was registered in
the name of the Plaintiff, being his mother. At the time of purchase, the suit
property was only a piece of land and no room had been constructed
thereon . Thereafter, in the year 1997 , construction was raised for residential
purposes, towards which Defendant No.1 claimed to have further
contributed Rs.60,000/- , and thus, claimed themselves to be joint owners of
the suit property.
16. It was further asserted that the entire family had initially been residing
jointly and amicably in the suit property and that Defendant No.1 had been
regularly contributing towards the family expenses.
17. According to the Defendants, Sh. Samar Bahadur Singh , the
younger son of the Plaintiff and younger brother of Defendant No.1, had
married the sister of Defendant No.2, however, the said marriage
subsequently broke down on account of matrimonial differences. It was
alleged that following the breakdown of the said marriage, relations between
the parties also became strained and the Plaintiff, under the influence of her
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 5 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
younger son, developed ill-will towards the Defendants and sought to
deprive them of their share in the family properties.
18. In regard to Civil Suit No.219/2013 , the Defendants relied upon the
Order dated 18.11.2015 and asserted that it had been recorded that they
could not be dispossessed from the suit property, except by due process of
law , whereafter the said Suit was disposed of as satisfied.
19. The allegations of ch eating, fabrication of documents, theft of the
cheque and harassment, were denied. The Defendants stated that they had
been residing in approximately half portion thereof, in their own right and
not merely at the permission of the Plaintiff.
20. The Plaintiff filed her Replication wherein the assertions made in the
Written Statement were denied and the averments contained in the Plaint
were reiterated.
21. On completion of pleadings, the following Issues were framed on
08.05.2023 :
“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction
in her favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession in her
favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Whether the suit is properly valued? OPD
(iv) Relief.”
22. The Plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by
way of Affidavit Ex.PW-1/1 . She relied upon, the Site Plan of the Suit
Property as Ex.PW-1/A ; General Power of Attorney dated 01.11.1996 as
Ex.PW-1/B ; Agreement to Sell dated 01.11.1996 as Ex.PW-1/C ; Will dated
01.11.1996 as Ex.PW-1/D ; Receipt dated 01.11.1996 as Ex.PW-1/E ; Police
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 6 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
Complaint dated 12.08.2013 as Mark-A ; and Copy of the cheque of
Rs.50,000/- given to Defendant No.1 as Mark-B .
23. In defence, Defendant No.1, Sh. Amar Bahadur Singh, examined
himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.DW-
1/A.
24. The learned District Judge observed that the burden was upon the
Plaintiff to establish her entitlement to the reliefs claimed . The GPA itself
recorded delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff,
thereby establishing that plaintiff had been put in possession, pursuant to the
sale transaction. The Receipt dated 01.11.1996 , reflected receiving of an
amount of Rs.35,000/- from the Plaintiff, Smt. Ram Pati Devi , in respect
of the suit property. Further, DW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that
the suit property was in the name of his mother, and he had not disputed
the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff as being forged,
25. The only claim of Defendant No.1 for joint ownership, was essentially
on the basis of his alleged financial contribution of Rs.1,50,000/- towards
purchase of the suit property and a further sum of Rs.60,000/- towards
its construction .
26. The learned District Judge observed that the said assertion was not
supported by any receipt, Bank transfer, cheque, acknowledgment or
other documentary evidence . His name also did not find mention in the
GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will or any of the documents pertaining to the
purchase of the suit property. It was, therefore, concluded that the plea of
Defendant No.1 regarding his financial contribution, remained a bald
assertion, which had not been proved by sufficient evidence.
27. The learned District Judge therefore, concluded that the legal effect
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 7 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
of the unregistered GPA, Agreement to Sell and Will relied upon by the
Plaintiff, do not convey title or constitute a completed transfer of immovable
property, though they may be relied upon for the limited purposes
recognised in law.
28. It was held that though the Plaintiff did not have a perfect title to the
suit property, in terms of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of
Haryana , the documents produced by her were sufficient to establish her
possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 .
29. However, having regard to their relationship as the son and daughter-
in-law of the Plaintiff, their occupation of the suit property was only
permissive in nature .
30. Consequently, vide the impugned Judgment and Decree dated
09.02.2026 , the Suit of the plaintiff was decreed for Possession and
Permanent Injunction .
31. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, the Defendants
have preferred the present Appeal.
32. The principal grounds of challenge are that the GPA, Agreement to
Sell, Will and Receipt relied upon by the Plaintiff did not confer title, and
the Suit for Possession, could not have decreed. The Plaintiff was required
to establish her own lawful entitlement to possession and could not succeed
merely on the weakness of the defence. The reliance upon Section 53A of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is also assailed, as being without any
factual foundation.
33. It is further contended that the Defendant No.1 that he had contributed
Rs.1,50,000/- towards the purchase of the suit property and Rs.60,000/-
towards its construction , thereby acquiring an alleged beneficial and
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 8 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
equitable interest therein, which has not been appreciated.
34. The Appellants have also asserted that their occupation was not
merely permissive. There was no material establishing any licensor-licensee
relationship and that they had remained in long, continuous and settled
possession of the suit property, as members of the family. Reliance has also
been placed upon their Aadhaar Cards, photographs and other
documents in support of such possession.
35. It is further asserted that, even if their occupation were treated as
permissive, no Notice terminating such permission or licence had been
issued or proved , and therefore, a Decree of Possession could not have
been granted.
36. It is lastly contended that the learned District Judge wrongly shifted
the burden upon the Defendants.
37. The Impugned Judgment is, therefore, asserted to be contrary to the
facts and law and liable to be set aside.
Submissions heard and record perused
38. Admittedly, the Appellants are the son and daughter-in-law of the
Respondent. It is also categorically admitted in the cross-examination by
defendant No.1 that the suit property was purchased by the father, in the
name of the mother/Respondent on the basis of Agreement to sell, etc. dated
01.11.1996 .
39. The principal challenge of the Appellants is that once the learned
District Judge observed that the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will and Receipt
dated 01.11.1996 did not constitute documents of title, a Decree of
Possession could not have been passed in favour of the Plaintiff.
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 9 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
40. Undoubtedly, in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd (supra) , it has
been held that an Agreement to Sell/GPA/Will transaction does not, by itself,
convey absolute title in an immovable property.
41. However, here is a case where the Defendants is claiming his title in
the suit property through the Plaintiff. Once the Defendant himself is
recognizing the rights of the Plaintiff, he cannot rely on Suraj Lamp and
Industries Pvt. Ltd (supra) to assert that the sale documents through which
his father purchased the property, do not confer absolute right, title on the
Plaintiff .
42. The question is not of title of the father vis-à-vis the entire world, but
the rights inter se the Plaintiff and Defendant. This contention is,
therefore, not tenable and the reliance upon Suraj Lamp & Industries
(P) Ltd. (supra) , does not advance the case of the Appellants.
43. The Appellants have also contended that the suit property has been
purchased by the father in the name of the Plaintiff, his wife, who had no
independent source of income. However, this contention is completely
misplaced as it was never the case of the Plaintiff of having paid the sale
consideration from her own earnings. Her consistent case was that her
husband was employed with MTNL , who had purchased the property from
his earnings, in her name. Significantly, Defendant No.1 has also admitted
the employment of his father with MTNL.
44. Furthermore, reference may also be made to Section 2(9)(A) of the
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 . While the
provision defines a benami transaction , exception clause (iii) specifically
excludes a property held by an individual in the name of his spouse or
child, where the consideration has been provided or paid out of the
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 10 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
known sources of such individual . Thus, merely because the consideration
for a property standing in the name of the wife was paid by her husband
would not, by itself, render the transaction benami . Merely because the sale
consideration was paid by the husband, would not create a right of the
son/Defendant No. 1, in the suit property.
45. Further the Appellants are claiming the rights in the suit property by
asserting that Defendant No. 1 had made financial contribution of
Rs.1,50,000/- towards its purchase and Rs. Rs.60,000/- , towards the
construction.
46. However, his own cross-examination completely undermines the said
plea, wherein he stated that the alleged payment of Rs.1,50,000/- had been
made “perhaps on 04/05.11.1997” . The relevant portion of the same is
reproduced herein:
“The payment of aforesaid amount was made perhaps on
04/05.11.1997 . It is wrong to suggest that I had not
contributed Rs. 1,50,000/- in payment of purchase of suit
property.”
47. In regard to the alleged contribution of Rs.60,000/- towards
construction, DW-1 was unable to state even the date or month of payment
and claimed that it had been made sometime in the year 1998 . He further
admitted that no document whatsoever had been placed on record, to
prove either of the said payments . The relevant portion of the same is
reproduced herein:
“I do not remember the exact date and month of payment of
Rs. 60,000/- as mentioned in para no. 4 of my evidence
affidavit but, it was made in the year 1998 at the time of
construction of the suit property. I have not placed any
document in this regard on record”
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 11 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
48. Thus, the amount claimed to have been contributed at the time of
purchase was, according to DW-1 himself, paid nearly one year thereafter .
The alleged contribution towards construction is equally unsupported by any
contemporaneous material.
49. On the contrary, the Receipt dated 01.11.1996, Ex.PW-1/E , records
receiving of Rs.35,000/- from Smt. Ram Pati Devi , while the name of
Defendant No.1 does not find mention in the GPA Ex.PW-1/B, Agreement
to Sell Ex.PW-1/C or Will Ex.PW-1/D . The learned District Judge,
therefore, rightly concluded that neither of the two alleged
contributions, had been proved.
50. Even otherwise, mere contribution towards household expenses,
construction or repairs of a property cannot, by itself, confer any right
of co-ownership . Likewise, merely residing together as members of one
family and sharing household expenditure does not convert a property
standing in the name of one family member into jointly owned property. No
common fund or other source from which the suit property was jointly
acquired, has been proved by the Appellants.
51. The Appellants have, therefore, failed to establish any independent
right, title or interest in the suit property. Their occupation, being only the
son and daughter-in-law of the Plaintiff, was rightly held to be permissive
in nature .
52. The mere fact that the Appellants may have remained in possession
for several years, does not alter the character of such occupation. The
Aadhaar Cards, photographs and other documents relied upon by them
may establish residence or possession, but do not establish any
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 12 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
independent right in the suit property.
53. Pertinently, in the earlier Civil Suit No.219/2013 , it was recorded
vide Order dated 18.11.2015 that the Defendants would not be dispossessed
except by due process of law . The said protection was only against forcible
dispossession and did not confer any substantive right upon them, to
continue in possession.
54. Another objection was taken by the Appellants that no separate Notice
terminating the permission of the Appellants had been served, but it is
equally without merit.
55. In M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF),
(2008) 2 SCC 728 , the Supreme Court, while considering the requirement of
a Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ,
observed that the filing of an eviction Suit under the general law itself
amounts to a Notice to quit and that a separate Notice was not necessary
for seeking eviction.
56. Though the said case arose in the context of a landlord-tenant
relationship, the principle is relevant to the limited extent that institution of
proceedings seeking recovery of possession itself clearly manifests the
intention of the owner/person entitled to possession that the occupant is no
longer permitted to continue.
57. In the present case, by instituting the Suit and specifically seeking
recovery of possession, the Plaintiff had unequivocally withdrawn the
permission granted to the Appellants to remain in occupation.
58. Thus, the GPA Ex.PW-1/B, Agreement to Sell Ex.PW-1/C, Will
Ex.PW-1/D and Receipt Ex.PW-1/E , though not constituting a registered
conveyance, establish the ownership/superior rights of the Plaintiff and also
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 13 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59
that the Appellants were in permissive user of the suit property, through the
Plaintiff/Respondent. The Appellants have failed to prove the very basis on
which an independent right was asserted by them. The Plaintiff, therefore,
established a better right to possession of the suit property, as against the
Appellants.
59. The learned District Judge has, therefore, rightly decreed the Suit for
Possession in respect of the suit property.
60. There is no merit in the present Appeal against the impugned
Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2026 , which is hereby, dismissed . The
pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 08, 2026
N
Signature Not Verified
RFA 704/2026 Page 14 of 14
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
16:52:59