A registered title supports a possession suit absent a valid challenge creating a genuine cloud on title.

The suit property, Flat No. H-43, First Floor, New Gobind Pura, Delhi, was purchased by Raman Singh from Lavan Singh through a Sale Deed dated 06.10.2005 and was subsequently sold by Raman Singh to Sunil Kumar through a registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010.

The defendants, including Late Ajit Singh and his legal representatives, were in possession of the property and claimed that the purchase consideration had been paid from the sale proceeds of Ajit Singh’s family property.

Sunil Kumar instituted a suit for possession, damages/mesne profits and permanent injunction after serving a legal notice requiring the defendants to vacate the property.

The Trial Court decreed possession and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, dismissed the counterclaim, but declined mesne profits for want of evidence regarding their quantum.

The defendants preferred the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC.

Whether the plaintiff could maintain and succeed in a suit for possession on the basis of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010, despite the defendants’ challenge to Raman Singh’s antecedent title?

Whether the defendants established a valid ground for declaration and cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010 on the allegations of fraud, collusion or want of consideration?

Whether the defendants’ challenge to the Sale Deed dated 06.10.2005 was maintainable when no specific relief had been sought and the challenge was raised beyond the limitation period?

Whether the defendants acquired title by adverse possession through their possession since 2005?

Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to frame additional issues or permit amendment of the counterclaim concerning the 2005 Sale Deed and adverse possession?

The Court applied Section 96 CPC governing a Regular First Appeal and the general principles of title-based suits for possession.

It relied on the principle that a registered conveyance raises a presumption of validity and that a party challenging a sale deed must plead and prove a legally sustainable ground such as fraud, illegality or want of authority; vague allegations are insufficient.

Referring to Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs, the Court held that a declaratory relief is necessary where the plaintiff’s title is under a genuine cloud, but no such relief is required where the plaintiff possesses registered title and the challenge is unsupported.

The Court further applied the limitation principle that a claim for cancellation must be brought within three years from knowledge of the relevant facts.

The adverse-possession plea required proof of possession that was open, hostile, continuous, exclusive and notorious for the statutory period of twelve years, in accordance with S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254.

The Court also upheld the procedural orders under Order VI Rule 17 and Order XIV Rule 5 CPC where the proposed amendments or additional issues lacked a timely and established foundation.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s title flowed from the registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010, while Raman Singh’s title was evidenced by the earlier registered Sale Deed dated 06.10.2005.

The defendants’ assertion that the purchase money originated from Ajit Singh’s or his wife’s property did not, by itself, confer ownership upon Ajit Singh or invalidate the registered title in Raman Singh’s name; moreover, no cogent evidence established the alleged source of funds.

The 2005 Sale Deed was never specifically challenged, despite Ajit Singh’s alleged knowledge of the transaction in December 2005. Any challenge raised in 2011 was therefore beyond the applicable limitation period.

The allegations concerning the 2010 Sale Deed were also held to be vague and unsupported: an allegedly low sale consideration did not establish fraud or collusion.

Since the registered title was not under a legally substantiated cloud, the suit for possession was maintainable without a separate declaration of title, and Anathula Sudhakar was distinguishable.

The adverse-possession contention failed because the defendants had not shown when their possession became hostile, nor had they consistently asserted an open and adverse claim against Raman Singh or the plaintiff.

The Trial Court’s refusal to permit delayed amendments or frame additional issues was consequently not materially irregular.

It held that the registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010 was valid, that the defendants had failed to establish any right, title or interest in the property, and that their counterclaim for declaration and cancellation was rightly dismissed.

The permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring or creating third-party rights in the suit property was upheld.

The refusal of mesne profits remained undisturbed because the plaintiff had not independently proved their quantum.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.