Attorney-executed Gift Deed aligning with principal’s testamentary intent is valid absent proven suspicious circumstances.

The property at 2C/26, Karol Bagh, was originally owned by Smt. Harbhajan Kaur ("HK") via a 1959 Sale Deed

HK had three sons: Ravinder, Charanjit (husband of the Appellant), and Jasbir (pre-deceased son and father/husband of the Respondents).

Respondents resided in a portion of the ground floor ("Suit Property").

HK moved to an Ashram in 1995

The Appellant claimed ownership via a Gift Deed dated 15.04.2008, executed by Charanjit as HK’s attorney (under a General Power of Attorney ("GPA") dated 22.06.2007), which followed a Will dated 14.06.2007

The Respondents challenged these documents as forged or obtained via undue influence, asserting they were co-owners

The Trial Court (ADJ) dismissed the suit, finding the execution of a GPA shortly after a Will suspicious and the documents unproven

The Appellant filed a Regular First Appeal and a Contempt Petition alleging the Respondents were creating third-party rights in violation of stay orders

1. Whether the Appellant established valid ownership of the Suit Property through the Will dated 14.06.2007 and the Gift Deed dated 15.04.2008

2. Whether the Respondents’ possession of the Suit Property was permissive in nature and thus liable to be terminated by the owner

3. Whether the Respondents committed contempt by allegedly creating third-party interests or violating the interim stay order dated 16.05.2023

The court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the powers of the first appellate court to review findings of fact and law

It relied on the Indian Evidence Act principles regarding the proof of testamentary documents (Wills) and registered instruments, noting that mere suspicion cannot replace legal proof

The court further applied the principle of "permissive license," where family members occupying property with the owner's consent do not acquire title and must vacate upon revocation of such permission

For the contempt matter, the court applied Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, requiring clear evidence of "willful disobedience"

The High Court observed that HK’s reliance on Charanjit was established by a long history of care and a previous GPA from 1983

Unlike the Trial Court, the High Court found the testimony of the attesting witness (PW-1) and the Record Keeper (PW-2) sufficient to prove the due execution and registration of the Will and GPA

It held that executing a GPA days after a Will is not inherently suspicious but reinforced HK’s intent to transfer the property to the Appellant to avoid future disputes

The court noted that the Respondents, despite living in the same building, were unaware of HK’s final illness and death, further supporting the claim that Charanjit was her primary caregiver

Consequently, the Respondents were deemed licensees whose permission to stay was revoked via legal notice

Regarding the contempt, the court found that mere visits by strangers or the fixing of a professional nameplate by a resident did not constitute the creation of third-party rights or willful disobedience of the stay order

It held that the Appellant is the rightful owner of the Suit Property

A decree for possession was passed in favor of the Appellant, granting the Respondents two months to vacate

Mesne profits were awarded at Rs. 7,500 per month from the date of the suit until delivery of possession, with 6% interest p.a.

The Contempt Petition was dismissed, as the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear violation of the court's interim orders