Registered sale deed creates absolute title; mere denial of title without evidence necessitates no declaratory relief.

The plaintiff (respondent) and defendant (appellant) are real brothers.

The plaintiff claimed absolute ownership of Flat No. 204, Yash Apartment, Ahmedabad, based on a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1977

The plaintiff permitted the defendant to reside in the property out of love and affection as a permissive user

Upon noticing a change in the defendant’s conduct and apprehending adverse occupation, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits

The defendant contested the suit, claiming the property was a partnership asset of "Hotel Mayur" purchased for tax purposes in the plaintiff's name

The City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 25.04.2023, directing the defendant to hand over possession and pay mesne profits of Rs. 5,000/- per month

1. Whether the appellant established that the suit property was jointly owned and purchased from the profits of Hotel Mayur?

2. Whether the plaintiff was required to seek a relief of declaration of title when such title was disputed by the defendant?

3. Whether a suit for possession and injunction is maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when the title is under a cloud?

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

It relied on the evidentiary value of a registered sale deed, invoking the principle that such documents carry a strong presumption of genuineness as established in Hemalatha (D) By Lrs vs Tukaram(D) By Lrs 2026 INSC 22

The Court also applied the principle that a permissive user cannot claim better title than the true owner and must hand over possession once permission is revoked

Regarding appellate procedure, it followed Laliteshwar Prasad Singh v. S.P. Srivastava (D) 2016(0) AIJEL-SC 59542, which holds that a concurring appellate court need not restate every reason of the trial court

The Court found that the plaintiff proved title through a certified copy of the registered sale deed (Exh. 47) and allotment letters

Conversely, the defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence to support the claim of joint ownership or partnership purchase

During cross-examination, the defendant admitted that the plaintiff remitted the sale consideration and that the defendant had acted as the plaintiff's power-of-attorney holder to even attempt a sale to a third party, thereby admitting the principal-agent relationship

The Court rejected the argument that a "declaration of title" was mandatory; since the plaintiff held a valid registered sale deed that was not specifically challenged as void, the mere denial by the defendant did not create a "cloud" necessitating a declaratory suit

Finally, the Court noted that the defendant had already voluntarily handed over possession during the execution of the trial court's decree

The Court held that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and the defendant was merely a permissive user whose right to occupy ended upon revocation of permission

The court confirmed the order for the defendant to pay mesne profits and vacated all interim reliefs

The finding of the trial court was affirmed as being based on proper appreciation of evidence without perversity