Tenant Lacks Locus to Challenge Ownership Title Duly Ratified and Admitted by the Transferee Trust

The plaintiff filed a partition suit regarding properties No. 230-231, Ghee Mandi, Paharganj, based on a 1980 sale deed executed by the defendant Trust.

The Court passed a preliminary decree on 19.09.2024 and a final decree on 10.10.2025.

A third party, Smt. Urmila Juneja (Review Petitioner), filed a review petition under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC claiming to be a legal heir of a former tenant and asserted ownership by adverse possession.

She argued the 1980 sale deed was invalid, citing a 2014 Civil Court judgment where it was held that not all trustees had signed the deed.

However, in the present suit, the Trust (Defendant No. 1) filed an application (I.A. No. 3833/2023) admitting the valid execution of the sale deed and surrendering all rights in the property.

1. Whether a tenant/third party has the locus standi to challenge a partition decree between owners by questioning the validity of their sale deed when the vendor (Trust) has admitted the transfer.

2. Whether the findings of invalidity in a previous suit (to which the Trust was not a party) render the current partition decree liable for review.

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC regarding the grounds for review.

Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which requires a registered document to be formally cancelled by a competent court to be declared void.

Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, creating a legal presumption of due execution for documents more than 30 years old produced from proper custody.

The principle of ratification, where the actions of some trustees can be authorized or later validated by the conduct of the remaining trustees.

The Court reasoned that the Review Petitioner, being a mere tenant whose claim of adverse possession had already been rejected in prior litigation, is a stranger to the title and lacks locus standi to challenge the owners' sale deed.

The Court noted that even if the 1980 sale deed was "voidable" due to the absence of some trustees' signatures, that defect was cured in the present proceedings because the Trust and its current trustees formally admitted the deed's validity and ratified the transaction.

Since the sale deed is a 40-year-old registered document that was never cancelled under the Specific Relief Act, its validity holds.

The Court found that the impleadment of the Trust in this suit "perfected" the title by removing any cloud previously cast by the District Court’s 2014 observations.

Furthermore, the Petitioner’s delay in filing—despite public notices by a Court Auctioneer and Local Commissioner—undermined the plea of recent knowledge.

The court held that once the vendor (the Trust) confirms the sale and the transfer of title before the Court, a tenant cannot dispute the landlord's title.

The prior District Court findings were superseded by the Trust’s express ratification in the current High Court proceedings.

All interim orders were vacated.