Possession Premised on Registered Conveyance Deed Prevails Over Unsubstantiated Claims of Co-Ownership and Adverse Possession

The Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a suit for possession and mesne profits regarding the second floor of property No. 1241, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi

The Respondent claimed absolute ownership via a registered Conveyance Deed dated 11.08.2000

He alleged that the Appellant (Defendant), his younger brother, was inducted as a permissive licensee in 2010 but refused to vacate following a legal notice dated 09.09.2013

The Appellant contested the suit, claiming co-ownership on the grounds that the property was purchased using joint family funds, including his own earnings and proceeds from the sale of their mother's property in 1986

The Appellant further pleaded adverse possession and argued the Respondent held the property in a fiduciary capacity

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent on 07.10.2024

1. Whether the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and entitled to a decree of possession

2. Whether the Defendant is a co-owner of the suit property or has acquired title through adverse possession

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits and at what rate

The Court applied Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC regarding the maintainability of the first appeal

It relied on the principle that a registered Conveyance Deed carries a presumption of valid title under the Evidence Act

Regarding adverse possession, the Court applied the doctrine established in M. Radhey Shyam Lal v. V. Sandhya & Anr., which requires the claimant to prove "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario"—possession that is adequate in continuity, publicity, and hostility to the true owner for over 12 years

The Court invoked Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act regarding the non-production of best evidence and the impact of a witness's death before cross-examination on the admissibility of their evidence-in-chief

The Court found that the Respondent proved his title through the registered Conveyance Deed (Ex. PW1/1)

It rejected the Appellant’s claim of joint family funding because the suit property was purchased in 1985, whereas the "source" property (Khyala) was sold only in 1986, making the timeline logically inconsistent

The Appellant failed to produce bank records or account books to corroborate financial contributions, leading the Court to conclude his claims were "bald assertions"

On the issue of the Grandmother’s GPA, the Court reasoned that executing a GPA in a relative's name to facilitate a sale to oneself is a common practice and does not confer ownership on the GPA holder

Regarding adverse possession, the Court held that the Appellant’s possession was permissive (as a licensee/family member) and lacked the requisite "hostile intent" or "open defiance" of the Respondent’s title

Finally, the Court upheld the mesne profits, noting that even in the absence of exact market rent evidence, the court can take judicial notice of the premises' nature to assess a reasonable sum

the Appellant failed to prove co-ownership or the essential ingredients of adverse possession

the award of mesne profits at ₹7,000 per month was reasonable based on judicial notice of the property's location and size

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.