Possessory rights under GPA and Agreement to Sell prevail over claims of succession by legal heirs.

The Appellant (Defendant), Smt. Sonu, challenged an ex-parte judgment dated 18.10.2019

The Respondent (Plaintiff), Hukam Singh, claimed ownership of Suit Property No. F-215/19, New Delhi, based on a chain of transfer documents (GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc.) ending with a purchase from his sister, Smt. Vishan Devi, on 07.03.2004

Following Vishan Devi’s death in 2014, the Appellant (claiming to be the daughter/step-daughter) occupied the premises and refused to vacate

The Appellant contended the property documents were forged, the suit was barred by limitation, and she was the sole legal heir

The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession in favor of the Plaintiff. The Appellant’s subsequent application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed on 16.08.2022

1. Whether the Plaintiff established a superior possessory and proprietary title to the suit property based on unregistered transfer documents (GPA/Agreement to Sell)

2. Whether the Appellant could claim a right to the property as a legal heir despite the prior sale of the property by the deceased to the Plaintiff

3. Whether the judgment was obtained through fraud by the concealment of pre-litigation mediation and alleged forgery in property numbers

The Court applied Section 96 and Section 151 of the CPC regarding the powers of the Appellate Court and inherent powers to prevent fraud

It relied on the principles established in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which clarifies that while GPA/SA/Will transactions do not confer absolute title like a registered sale deed, they can create possessory rights and a "better title" against trespassers or those without a superior claim

The court also referenced Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma regarding the requirement for a Plaintiff to establish a better right than the Defendant in a suit for possession

The Court observed that the Plaintiff successfully proved the chain of ownership from 1990 through 2004, culminating in the documents Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/9 executed by Smt. Vishan Devi

Although the Appellant alleged fraud regarding the "new property number" on the documents, the Court found the identity of the property was never in dispute and the discrepancy was of "little consequence"

The Court noted that the Appellant failed to lead evidence to prove her status as the daughter or to disprove the Plaintiff's documents

Crucially, the Court held that even if the Appellant was the legal heir, she could not claim rights superior to those of Smt. Vishan Devi, who had already transferred possessory/proprietary rights to the Plaintiff during her lifetime

The fact that the Plaintiff’s Succession Certificate for movable assets was previously contested did not affect the proprietary rights established over the immovable property

It held that the Plaintiff proved a "better proprietary title" than the Appellant based on the GPA and Agreement to Sell

The Court confirmed the order directing the Appellant to hand over peaceful possession of the suit property and the permanent injunction restraining her from creating third-party interests

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly