A licensee who entered through the plaintiff is estopped from denying the plaintiff’s possessory title.

The respondent and his daughter claimed co-ownership and prior possession of a 100-square-yard property, which they said they had acquired in 2003. The respondent’s case was that he permitted the appellant and his family to occupy part of it; the appellant claimed instead to have entered under sale documents allegedly executed in 2006 and 2012, and sought specific performance of the latter agreement.

The trial court dismissed the respondent’s possession suit, finding his title insufficiently proved and the appellant’s possession not shown to be unauthorised. On first appeal, the District Judge reversed that decision, ordered possession and awarded mesne profits of ₹12,000 per month from 15 May 2014. The appellant challenged that decree in this second appeal.

1. Whether the respondent established a right to recover possession against the appellant, notwithstanding the dispute over absolute title and the appellant’s plea that the property was Government/DDA land.

2. Whether the appellant established a right to remain in possession under the alleged 2006 and 2012 sale documents, including protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

3. Whether the award of mesne profits at ₹12,000 per month from 15 May 2014 warranted interference.

4. Whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC.

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a second appeal lies only where a substantial question of law arises.

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 estops a licensee who entered property under a licensor from denying that the licensor had title to the possession when the licence was granted.

Under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agreement to sell does not protect possession unless the statutory requirements are met; following the introduction of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, an agreement executed thereafter must be registered to have effect for Section 53A.

A contract for sale does not, by itself, create an interest in or convey ownership of immovable property: Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam, (1977) 3 SCC 247, and Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656.

A person entering property by licence cannot deny the licensor’s title to possession at the time of entry: Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra v. Stanley Parker Jones, (2006) 3 SCC 91.

An unregistered post-amendment agreement cannot support Section 53A protection: Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar, (2018) 7 SCC 639.

The Court found that the respondent’s evidence, including the former owner’s testimony and registered documents, established his proprietary and possessory right as against the appellant; the appellant himself traced his entry to the respondent and acknowledged the respondent’s ownership.

The appellant’s claim of purchase in 2006 was undermined by evidence that the relevant stamp papers were issued only in 2012, while the 2012 agreement was found fabricated on the evidence and, in any event, contemplated a future sale deed and was unregistered. It therefore conveyed no ownership and could not protect possession under Section 53A.

The appellant’s entry through the respondent also attracted Section 116 estoppel; the unsupported assertion that the land belonged to the DDA did not give the appellant an independent right to retain possession, and the inter partes decision would not determine or bind the DDA’s title.

The Court upheld the monthly mesne-profits award as a reasonable assessment based on the extent and location of the occupied premises.

It found no substantial question of law warranting second-appeal interference and dismissed the appeal, leaving in place the decree for possession, mesne profits of ₹12,000 per month from 15 May 2014 until delivery of possession, and the restraint against creation of third-party interests.