GPA, Will, and Share Certificates do not confer title or legal entitlement to possession.

The Plaintiff (paternal aunt) filed a suit for permanent injunction and possession of property A-6, Nav Bharat Times Apartments, Delhi ("suit property"), claiming title via a Will and GPA executed by her mother, Mrs. Rama Tandon.

The Plaintiff alleged her parents purchased the property in 1989 and the Defendant (niece) was a trespasser.

The Defendant filed a counter-claim for declaration of sole ownership, alleging her father, late Mr. Puneet Tandon, was the actual purchaser.

She also sought rendition of accounts for other properties and partition of ancestral assets in Uttar Pradesh.

The Plaintiff resides in New Zealand; the suit was instituted through an attorney, Mrs. Anju Seth.

1. Whether the suit is maintainable having been filed by an attorney allegedly lacking personal knowledge of the facts?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to possession and permanent injunction regarding the suit property based on title?

3. Whether the Defendant/Counter-claimant is entitled to a declaration of ownership of the suit property and rendition of accounts?

4. Whether the claim for partition of ancestral properties situated in Uttar Pradesh is maintainable?

The Court applied Order VI Rules 14 and 15 of the CPC, which permit a duly authorized agent acquainted with the facts (even if not personally conversant) to sign and verify pleadings.

It relied on Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha regarding the limited evidentiary role of a power of attorney holder.

Substantively, it applied the doctrine from Suraj Lamps Industries v. State of Haryana, establishing that GPA, Will, and Agreement to Sell transactions do not convey legal title to immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Section 16 of the CPC was applied to determine that suits for partition must be instituted where the property is situate.

Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was applied regarding recovery of possession based on title.

On maintainability, the Court found the attorney competent as she was "acquainted" with facts via instructions, satisfying Order VI Rule 15.

However, on the merits of possession, the Plaintiff failed to prove prior possession or valid title.

The Court noted that the documents relied upon (GPA/Will/Receipt) were mere "agency" contracts and did not constitute "conveyance" as per Suraj Lamps.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to produce a freehold transfer deed.

Regarding the counter-claim, the Defendant similarly failed to prove her father’s title, as his claim also rested on non-conveyance documents (SPA/Receipts).

The claim for rendition of accounts failed because the Defendant could not prove that funds from the "Su-Swagatham" property or movable assets ever reached the Plaintiff.

Finally, the partition claim for UP properties was hit by Section 16 CPC (territorial jurisdiction) and non-joinder of necessary parties.

It held that neither party established legal title to the suit property, as GPA/Will transactions are not transfers of property.

The Plaintiff was not entitled to possession or mesne profits.

The Defendant’s prayers for rendition of accounts were dismissed for lack of foundational evidence,

and the partition prayer was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

No relief was granted to either party.