Mere permissive possession through family relation does not confer ownership despite long-term occupation or payment of utility charges.

The Plaintiffs (Respondents herein) filed a suit for possession, declaration, and permanent injunction regarding House No. 1104, New Usmanpur, Delhi.

The property was originally allotted to Late Makua Ram via a perpetual lease deed in 1961.

Makua Ram permitted his younger brother, Shankar Lal (Defendant No. 1/Appellant), to occupy a portion as a licensee.

Following Makua Ram’s death in 1992, the Defendants allegedly attempted to forcibly occupy more rooms and claimed ownership based on a set of documents (GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit, and Will) dated 24.07.1989, asserting a sale for Rs. 50,000/-.

The Plaintiffs alleged these documents were forged.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs in 2010, and the First Appellate Court (ADJ) dismissed the Defendants' appeal in 2016.

1. Whether the manner in which the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court examined the evidence with respect to the claim of the appellants that the title in the suit property stood transferred by Makua Ram to Shankar Lal, suffers from perversity?

The court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limits Second Appeals to substantial questions of law and precludes re-appreciation of factual findings unless perverse.

It relied on Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that a Will cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been examined.

The court also applied general principles of property law, holding that documents such as a General Power of Attorney (GPA) or an Agreement to Sell do not, by themselves, confer proprietary title or ownership rights in the absence of a registered sale deed.

The Court scrutinized the findings of the lower courts regarding the authenticity of the 1989 documents.

It noted that the Handwriting Expert (PW-3) provided a detailed report (Ex.PW-3/15) demonstrating that the thumb impressions on the Receipt were "LOOP" type, whereas Makua Ram’s admitted impressions were "WHORL" type.

Additionally, the expert identified significant dissimilarities in handwriting characteristics such as curves, angles, and pen movements in the signatures.

The High Court found that the Trial Court’s reference to Wikipedia was merely to comprehend technical terms and did not undermine the expert's testimony.

Regarding the Appellants' claimed possession since 1967 and payment of house tax, the court observed that the tax receipts reflected different property numbers (99/5 and 29/5) rather than the suit property.

Furthermore, even if possession was established, it was held as permissive/licensee-based and did not ripen into ownership through GPA or ATS.

The Will was dismissed because no attesting witness was examined as required by law.

It affirmed that the Defendants were unauthorized occupants/permissive users and had failed to establish any legal title.

The court answered the substantial question of law in the negative, holding that no question of law was discernible as the challenge was purely on factual findings.

The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession in favor of the Plaintiffs was upheld.