Permissive User Residing in Parental Property as Licensee Cannot Claim Independent Title Against Parent-Owner

The Plaintiff/Respondent, Chander Bhan, acquired property E-87, Dharampal Colony, New Delhi via GPA and Agreement to Sell in 1994

In 2004, he reconstructed the property and permitted his son, the Defendant/Appellant, to reside on the first floor on a permissive basis

Due to strained relations, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to vacate in August 2019, but the Defendant refused, claiming the property was ancestral and his share was determined by an oral family settlement

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, ordering a mandatory injunction for vacation and mesne profits

The Defendant appealed, challenging the Plaintiff's title and the maintainability of a suit for injunction without seeking a declaration of ownership

Whether the Plaintiff established sufficient proprietary rights to seek a mandatory injunction against the Defendant.

Whether the Defendant occupied the suit property as a permissive user/licensee or in his own right via an oral family settlement.

Whether the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title.

Whether the award of mesne profits at Rs. 5,000/- per month was legally sustainable without a formal inquiry.

The court applied Section 96 of the CPC regarding appeals from original decrees

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, noting that property inherited from a father/grandfather devolves in an individual capacity rather than as ancestral coparcenary property

The court relied on the distinction between a licensee and a person in settled possession, citing M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) regarding the filing of a suit acting as a notice to vacate

The court also addressed the evidentiary value of GPA/Agreement to Sell transfers under the principles in Suraj Lamps v. State of Haryana, while clarifying that such documents can establish possessory rights against a gratuitous licensee

The court reasoned that the Plaintiff proved his acquisition of the property in 1994 through Ex.PW1/1, a fact corroborated by the Defendant’s own siblings (DW2 and DW3)

The court rejected the Defendant’s "ancestral property" defense, noting that the prior property at Madangir was owned exclusively by the grandfather and given to the Plaintiff individually; thus, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, it was not ancestral in the hands of the Plaintiff

The court found the "oral family settlement" plea unsubstantiated as the Defendant could not provide specific details of its occurrence or participants

Regarding the nature of occupation, the court determined that the Defendant, having entered as a child and continued out of paternal love and affection, was a "permissive user/licensee" whose rights were revoked upon the demand for vacation and the filing of the suit

the court found an inquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 CPC unnecessary because the Defendant himself admitted in cross-examination that the floor could fetch a rent of Rs. 5,000/- to 6,000/-

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment. The Appellant was directed to remove his belongings and vacate the premises.