Grant of title via registered deeds prevails over mere permissive possession and inter-departmental regularisation correspondence.

The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession regarding properties 23/7 (ground floor) and 23/8 (first floor), Pant Nagar, New Delhi.

The property was originally allotted to Sh. Tirath Ram (Respondent’s father) in 1956.

The Respondent claimed ownership via a Perpetual Lease Deed and Conveyance Deed dated February 5, 1992, and asserted that the Appellants (maternal cousins) were merely permissive users.

The Appellants contended that property 23/7 belonged to their father, Sh. Banarasi Das, and property 23/8 was applied for by Appellant No. 1, alleging the Respondent’s documents were fraudulent.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent.

1. Whether the Plaintiff established a superior title to the suit property as a basis for a decree of mandatory injunction.

2. Whether inter-departmental correspondence and RTI replies can override registered title documents.

3. Whether the Appellants could challenge the validity of the Respondent's title documents without filing a formal suit for cancellation.

The Court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding first appeals.

The court relied on the principle that a registered Perpetual Lease Deed and Conveyance Deed constitute primary evidence of title under the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court further applied the doctrine of "better title," establishing that in possessory disputes, the party demonstrating superior legal documentation prevails over those asserting permissive use or long-term occupation without proprietary proof.

It also affirmed the procedural rule that registered documents carry a presumption of validity unless challenged through specific legal proceedings for cancellation.

The Court found that the Respondent successfully proved ownership by producing the original allotment records, Perpetual Lease Deed, and Conveyance Deed through PW-1 (MCD official).

Conversely, the Appellants failed to produce any allotment letters or title deeds in their names.

The Court dismissed the Appellants' reliance on RTI replies and correspondence with the Slum & JJ Department, reasoning that applications for regularization or inter-departmental inquiries do not create proprietary rights in immovable property.

The Court noted that during cross-examination, the Appellants (DW-1 and DW-3) admitted they never legally challenged the Respondent’s 1992 title documents.

Since the Respondent held registered title and the Appellants were mere occupants with no proven legal interest, the Respondent's title was deemed superior.

The Appellants were ordered to vacate the property and pay damages for use and occupation as decreed by the Trial Court. All pending applications were disposed of.