Unchallenged registered title warrants possession decree under Order XII Rule 6 despite claims of joint family property.

The Plaintiffs (Respondents) filed a suit for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, and damages, claiming exclusive ownership of property No. 136, Mandakini Enclave, New Delhi, via a registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009

In January 2020, the Defendants (Appellants)—the first Plaintiff's sister and her husband—were permitted to stay in the suit property as bare licensees to care for the first Plaintiff’s mother

After the mother’s death and the lifting of COVID-19 lockdowns, the Plaintiffs revoked the license on 10.09.2020, but the Defendants refused to vacate

The Defendants contended the property was a joint family asset purchased with ancestral funds and cited a purported handwritten family settlement

The Defendants also filed a separate partition suit

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leading to this appeal

1. Whether a decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was sustainable based on the registered Sale Deed and the nature of the Defendants' admissions

2. Whether the defense that the property was purchased through joint family funds created a triable issue, considering Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act

3. Whether the pendency of a separate partition suit barred the grant of an injunction/possession decree in the present suit

The court primarily applied Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which empowers the court to pass a judgment based on admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise

It applied Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, which generally prohibits pleas of benami ownership, noting that the statutory provisos did not assist the Defendants

The court also referenced the principle from Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira regarding the requirements for establishing a legal right to continue possession

Considered the presumption of joint family property acquisition as discussed in K. V. Naarayanaswami Iyer v. I. V. Ramakrishna Iyer

The Court observed that the Plaintiffs held a registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009, and notably, Appellant No. 1 (the sister) was an attesting witness to that document

The Defendants failed to challenge the validity of this Sale Deed for over a decade

The Court reasoned that the defense of "joint family funds" was legally untenable under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act in the absence of a formal challenge to the title

Regarding the "Family Settlement," the Court found that such claims were the subject of the separate pending partition suit and did not provide a defense to a simpliciter suit for possession where the title was clear

The Court determined that because the title was established by the unchallenged Sale Deed and the license had been revoked, there was no triable issue regarding the Plaintiffs' right to recover possession

It held that the clear and unambiguous admission of the registered Sale Deed in favor of the Plaintiffs, coupled with the lack of a valid legal challenge to that deed, justified a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC

The Court affirmed the direction for the Appellants to vacate the property, noting that any claims regarding the common "hotch-potch" of family assets must be adjudicated in the pending partition suit