Unregistered Transfer Documents Predating Suraj Lamp Establish Superior Possessory Title Against a Licensee in Suit for Possession

The Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the Respondent/Defendant (the brother of the Appellant’s husband) regarding one room on the first floor of property No. E-57, Hari Nagar Extension, New Delhi

The Appellant claimed her husband purchased the property in 1995 via unregistered documents (GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc.)

and subsequently transferred it to her in 2005 through similar documents

The Respondent was allegedly permitted to reside there as a gratuitous licensee in 2005

The Respondent contested the suit, claiming the property was purchased by their late father in 1993 and that he held a share by inheritance

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Appellant, finding the Respondent a licensee

However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, holding that the Appellant lacked legal title due to the non-registration of sale documents per the Suraj Lamp judgment, and cited the Respondent’s "settled possession"

The court applied Section 100 of the CPC regarding the scope of second appeals

It relied on the distinction between proprietary and possessory title under Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963

established that possession is good title against everyone except the rightful owner (Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander)

defines "settled possession" as a shield against force but not against due process (Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu)

applied the "genuine transactions" carve-out from Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656, which protects SA/GPA transactions between relatives executed prior to the judgment

The High Court observed that the Respondent failed to prove his claim of inheritance or independent title, whereas the Appellant proved a continuous chain of possessory documents

The court reasoned that the First Appellate Court misapplied the doctrine of "settled possession"; a licensee’s possession is juridically referable to the licensor and cannot be asserted against the licensor to defeat a suit for possession

Regarding Suraj Lamp, the court noted the Supreme Court specifically exempted genuine transactions between spouses or relatives from its invalidation of GPA sales

Since the 2005 transfer was between husband and wife and occurred prior to the 2011 Suraj Lamp ruling, it remained a valid basis for a possessory claim

The court concluded that in a suit for possession, the plaintiff only needs to show a "better right" to possess than the defendant, which the Appellant achieved through the notarized documents and the established licensor-licensee relationship

It held that the First Appellate Court erred in applying Suraj Lamp retrospectively and in ignoring the Appellant's superior possessory title

The judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 22.11.2019 was set aside, and the Trial Court’s decree for possession dated 28.04.2014 was restored

The Respondent was granted six months to hand over peaceful and vacant possession