Delhi District Court
Naeemuddin vs Salimuddin And Anr on 7 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PADMA LADOL: CIVIL JUDGE-03
SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 908/2022
CNR No. DLSH030014702022
NAEEMUDDIN
S/o. SH. SALIMUDDIN
R/o. 548 & 548-B,
STREET NO. 24, JAFRABAD, DELHI-53
...........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SALIMUDDIN (Suit stood abated v.o.d 16.08.2023)
S/o SH. WASIUDDIN
2. MUQEEMUDDIN
S/o SH. SALIMUDDIN
BOTH R/O. 548-A, GALI NO. 24,
JAFRABAD, DELHI-53
ALSO AT: 548-548/B, STREET NO-24,
JAFRABAD, DELHI-53 ..........DEFENDANTS
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION ALONG
WITH DAMAGES/OCCUPATION CHARGES
Date of institution : 28.07.2022
Date of decision : 07.04.2026
Final Order : DISMISSED
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 1 of 29
JUDGMENT
I. FACTUAL MATRIX:
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking
(i) a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents,
servants, family members, representatives etc. from selling/disposing of/
creating any third party interest in the ground floor of property bearing no.
548 and 548-B, Street No. 24, Jafrabad, Delhi-53 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the suit property’) as shown in the site plan in red colour; (ii) a decree of
mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate and give peaceful
possession of the suit property; (iii) a decree of damages and occupation
charges at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day w.e.f. 01.07.2022 till the date of
handing over of possession of the suit property along with pendente lite and
future interest; (iv) cost of the suit and any other relief as deemed fit by the
Court.
2. To put it succinctly, the case of the plaintiff is that defendant no.1 is his
father and defendant no. 2 is his brother. That plaintiff is stated to be the real
owner and in possession of the suit property having been purchased by him
from his own funds. That plaintiff resides on the first and second floor of the
suit property. That defendant no. 2 is the owner of property bearing no.
548A, Gali No. 24, Jafrabad, Delhi-53. That out of love and affection,
plaintiff allowed defendants to live on the ground floor of the suit property
as licensees under a verbal settlement and plaintiff was living and using the
ground floor of property bearing no. 548-A since 2007 as licensee. That in
month of August 2021, plaintiff and defendant no.2 reached upon a verbal
settlement wherein it was decided that each shall remove his possession
from the property of each other and handover peaceful possession of the
same. Accordingly, plaintiff vacated the ground floor of property bearing no.
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 2 of 29
548-A and handed over the peaceful possession of the same to defendant
no.2 but defendant no. 2 did not vacate the suit property and made excuses
on one pretext or other and defendant no. 1 had also flatly refused to vacate
the same. That defendants are trying to encroach the ground floor by raising
wall and installing CCTV cameras in the internal portion of the suit property.
That after surrendering the property bearing no. 548-A by plaintiff,
defendant had let out the same on rent and has been enjoying the rental
income. That defendants have also filed false and frivolous complaints in the
police station against plaintiff and his family. That defendants have also
served a false and frivolous legal notice dated 06.06.2022 upon plaintiff in
order to grab the suit property. He sent a reply to the notice dated 01.07.2022
whereby he terminated the license of the defendants. That defendants have
been illegally and unauthorizedly living in the suit property after termination
of license w.e.f. 01.07.2022, hence, plaintiff has instituted the present suit
seeking possession, permanent and mandatory injunction against the
defendants.
3. After issuance of summons, defendants appeared and filed a joint written
statement (hereinafter referred to as ‘WS’). Preliminary objections were
taken in the WS stating that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as
plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed
material and relevant facts. It is stated that plaintiff is not the owner of the
suit property and does not possess any documentary proof. That the family
General Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2013 which is filed by the plaintiff is
an unstamped document and does not hold any value in the eyes of law. That
the said GPA is infructuous, as the executor of the said document has already
died on 07.08.2015. That all the documents including agreement to sell,
receipt, possession letter, will deed and GPA all dated 27.11.2013 filed by
the plaintiff are unregistered and unstamped documents. That the documents
dated 06.05.2003 filed by the plaintiff are in respect of property No. 544 and
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 3 of 29
are not related to the suit property. It is stated that there is no relationship of
licensor and licensee between the plaintiff and defendants as alleged by the
plaintiff. It is further stated that the plaintiff and his entire family members
were totally dependent upon defendant no.1 as he did not have any source of
income during the relevant period of purchase of the suit property. That the
documents dated 27.11.2013 filed by the plaintiff were executed, being a
family arrangement, in favour of plaintiff by the mother of plaintiff for the
exclusive purpose of obtaining an additional electricity connection in the suit
premises and that no monetary transaction was involved. It is further stated
that plaintiff has failed to show the transfer of consideration amount in
respect of the suit property. It is also stated that present suit is a counter-blast
to the notice dated 06.06.2022 served upon the plaintiff by defendant no.1,
whereby the plaintiff himself was asked to vacate the suit property. In reply
on merits, it is stated that plaintiff is a disobedient and dishonest person and
is habitual of raising quarrels. That defendant no.1 was a government
employee and had purchased several properties at different locations in the
name of his wife and his children. That plaintiff himself is the licensee in the
suit property and has been in illegal and unlawful possession of the suit
property. That the suit property bearing no. 548-B was purchased by
defendant no.1 in the name of his wife Sarwari Begum, however, plaintiff
with malafide intention had got the documents dated 27.11.2013 executed in
his favour on the pretext of getting an electricity connection. All the other
averments of the plaint are denied and it is prayed that suit may be dismissed
with heavy cost.
4. Plaintiff has filed replication to the WS of the defendants in which the
averments of the plaint were reiterated and allegations of WS have been
denied.
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 4 of 29
5. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed vide order
dated 10.05.2023:-
1. Whether the property documents including Family GPA,
agreement to sell, receipt, possession letter, affidavit and Will, all
dated 27.11.2013 were executed in the name of plaintiff at the
instance of defendant no.1 only for purpose of obtaining electricity
connection? (OPD)
2. Whether the property documents including GPA, SPA, Will,
agreement to sell, receipt and possession letter all dated 06.05.2003
were executed in the name of plaintiff at the instance of defendant
no.1 and the entire payment was made by defendant no.1 only?
(OPD)
3. Whether the defendants are the licensee of the plaintiff in
the suit property and the license has been duly terminated? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit
property by way of mandatory injunction against the defendants?
(OPP)
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for? (OPP)
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for occupation
charges/mesne profits and if yes, at what rate and for what period?
(OPP)
7. Relief.
6. During the pendency of suit, defendant no. 1 passed away and since
defendant no. 2 was already an LR of deceased defendant no. 1, no other LR
was impleaded in his place. Accordingly, the present suit with respect to
defendant no. 1 stood abated vide order dated 16.08.2023.
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 5 of 29
II. PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE:
7. To prove his case, the plaintiff stepped into the witness box and examined
himself as PW1 by tendering his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW1/A
and also tendered the following documents:
(i) Copy of Aadhar card of plaintiff: Ex. AD-1 (admitted by defendants).
(ii) Legal notice dated 06.06.2022: Ex. AD-2 (admitted by defendants).
(iii) Reply to legal notice dated 01.07.2022 addressed to advocate and
copy to defendant no. 1: Ex. AD-3 (admitted by defendants).
(iv) Reply to legal notice dated 01.07.2022 addressed to defendant no. 2:
Ex. AD-4 (admitted by defendants).
(v) Original electricity bill dated 17.05.2022 with respect to property no.
548: Ex. AD-5 (admitted by defendants).
(vi) Electricity bill dated 17.05.2022 with respect to property no. 548-B:
Ex. AD-6 (admitted by defendants).
(vii) Family GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter,
Affidavit and Will Deed all dated 27.11.2013: Ex. AD-7 (colly)(admitted
by defendants).
(viii) GPA, SPA, Deed of Will, Registration Form-2, Receipt-A,
Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Possession Letter all dated 06.05.2003:
Ex. AD-8 (colly) (admitted by defendants).
(ix) Postal receipt dated 01.07.2022: Ex. PW1/E
(x) Site plan: Ex. PW1/J
PW-1 was duly cross examined at length by Ld. counsel for defendant.
Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed by a separate statement of Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff dated 08.07.2024.
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 6 of 29
III. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE:
8. To prove his case, defendant no. 2 examined two witnesses. He examined
himself as DW-2 and his brother Kalimuddin as DW-3. They tendered their
evidence affidavits as Ex. DW2/A and Ex. DW3/A respectively. DW-2
relied upon a complaint given to SHO PS Jafrabad dated 27.05.2022 as
Mark A. Both the witnesses were cross examined by Ld. counsel for
plaintiff and defendant evidence was closed vide a statement of the Ld.
counsel for defendant on 16.10.2024. Matter was, thereafter fixed for final
arguments.
9. In the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff’s
mother was the original owner of the suit property, however, she never
challenged the title documents of plaintiff and defendants have no locus to
challenge the same. It is further argued that plaintiff had sent a legal notice
to the defendants terminating the license, however, they did not reply to the
same. Therefore, they admitted that they were licensees in the suit property.
Ld. Counsel has also argued that plaintiff is entitled to a mesne profit @ Rs.
40,000/- per month which is equivalent to the rent of property bearing no.
548-A as deposed by defendant no. 2. It is lastly contended that the
electricity meter in property bearing no. 548-B was always and is still in the
name of Smt. Sarwari Begum, therefore the claim that documents at Ex.
AD-7(colly) were executed only for availing an additional electricity
connection has no merits.
10. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the present suit is not
maintainable as the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property, rather
plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for partition. It is further argued that
defendants were never the licensees of plaintiff and they have been residing
in the suit property in their own rights being the owner/father and son. It is
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 7 of 29
also contended that not a single question was put to the defendant no. 2 on
licensor-licensee relationship during his cross-examination. Ld. Counsel has
also contended that no verbal settlement took place in August 2021 as
alleged by plaintiff. That the present suit is only a counter-blast to the legal
notice dated 06.06.2022 sent by defendant no. 1 to plaintiff asking him to
vacate the suit property. It is further contended that the entire sale
consideration with respect to property no. 548 was paid by defendant no. 1
as the plaintiff had no means to make any such payment. Similarly, plaintiff
also did not make any payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the mother namely Smt.
Sarwari Begum as the documents [Ex. AD-7(colly)] was executed only for
the purpose of getting an additional electricity connection in the name of
plaintiff and not to transfer the ownership and plaintiff himself has admitted
that he did not have this much money in the year 2013. It is lastly contended
that none of the documents relied upon by plaintiff confer any title in the suit
property as they are unregistered and hit by the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana (2011 SC).
11. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the defendants have
duly admitted their signatures on the title documents of plaintiff and no
objection has been taken with respect to the documents of property bearing
no. 548.
12. The rival contentions raised by the parties have been heard. The materials
available on record including written submissions filed on behalf of
defendants have been given due consideration after careful and minute
perusal.
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 8 of 29
IV. FINDINGS:
13. My issue wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the property documents including Family
GPA, agreement to sell, receipt, possession letter, affidavit and Will
all dated 27.11.2013 were executed in the name of plaintiff at the
instance of defendant no. 1 only for purpose of obtaining electricity
connection? (OPD)
14. The burden to prove this issue was on defendant. Before adverting to
the facts in question, it is important to note that the GPA, Agreement to sell,
Receipt, Possession letter, Affidavit and Will, all dated 27.11.2013 [Ex. AD-
7 (colly)] pertaining to suit property bearing no. 548-B are duly admitted by
the defendants. The only objection taken by them is that the purpose of
execution of the said documents was only for obtaining an additional
electricity connection in the suit property in the name of plaintiff.
15. With regard to the issue in hand, defendants have stated in their WS
that the plaintiff is neither the owner of the suit property nor has any any
registered ownership document in his favour as the family GPA dated
27.11.2013 (on stamp paper dated 28.11.2013) is an unstamped document
and has no value in the eyes of law, specially after the death of its executor
on 07.08.2015, it has become infructuous. It is further stated that other
documents i.e. Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter, Affidavit, Will
Deed and GPA all dated 27.11.2013 are unregistered and unstamped and
cannot be relied upon. It is also mentioned in the WS that defendant no. 1
was a government employee who was also doing side business of sale and
purchase of properties and selling of milk etc. He had purchased several
properties in the names of his wife and children on different occasions. That
the suit property bearing no. 548-B was purchased by defendant no. 1 on
24.09.2002, in the name of his wife, Smt. Sarwari Begum. On 27.11.2013,
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 9 of 29
plaintiff had requested defendant no. 1 and his wife to put their signatures on
a GPA and other documents viz. agreement to sell, receipt, possession letter,
affidavit and Will all dated 27.11.2013 in favour of plaintiff in respect of
suit property bearing no. 548-B for the purpose of obtaining an additional
electricity connection in the suit premises in his name. Accordingly, the wife
of defendant no. 1 put her signature and both the defendants also put their
signatures on all the said documents as witnesses in good faith. It is
reiterated that the Family GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession
Letter, Affidavit, Will Deed and GPA all dated 27.11.2013 were executed
being family arrangement in favour of plaintiff by the mother of plaintiff for
the exclusive purpose for obtaining an additional electricity connection at
the suit premises and there was no monetary transaction or consideration
against the execution of the said documents. On 28.11.2013, the plaintiff
again visited the defendant no. 1 and his wife and asked them to sign another
GPA as Electricity Department had refused to accept unregistered GPA. At
the request of plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 and his wife accompanied him to
the office of sub-registrar for registration of GPA. Similarly, the wife of
defendant no. 1 put her signatures and the defendants also put their
signatures on the said GPA as witnesses in good faith. It is further stated in
the WS that the plaintiff is having illegal and unlawful possession over first
and second floors of the suit property no. 548-B and the entire suit property
bearing no. 548, wherein the plaintiff was put and permitted to occupy the
same as a licensee being the elder son of defendant no. 1. All these facts
have been reiterated by both DW-2 and DW-3 in their respective evidence
affidavits [Ex. DW-2/A and Ex. DW-3/A].
16. During the cross-examination of DW2, he has conceded that pursuant
to the execution of the documents at Ex. AD-7 (colly) i.e. family GPA dated
28.11.2013, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, possession letter, Receipt, Will all
dated 27.11.2013, no electricity connection was obtained by plaintiff in the
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 10 of 29
property mentioned in the said documents. He has further deposed that he
did not know at the time of execution of the said documents that only a GPA
is required for obtaining electricity connection and rest of the documents are
not required for that purpose. DW-2 has voluntarily stated that now he
knows about this fact as on date. He has further admitted that all the
documents at Ex. AD-7 (colly) except the affidavit bears his signature. The
witness has also deposed that the electricity connection in property bearing
no. 548-B is in the name of Smt. Sarwari Begum since long back. He has
also admitted that the electricity connection in the said property was in the
name of Smt. Sarwari Begum, even at the time of execution of the said
documents.
17. Although the defendant no. 2 has averred in the pleadings that the
documents at Ex. AD-7 (colly) were executed only for the purpose of getting
an additional electricity connection in the suit property bearing no. 548-B in
the name of plaintiff, he has not produced any credible or substantive
evidence on record to prove the said fact except the bald averment. It is also
an admitted fact that the plaintiff never got any additional electricity
connection in his name, before or after the execution of the said documents.
This fact also goes contrary to the alleged purpose of execution of
documents. Defendant also could not explain the circumstances surrounding
the requirement of plaintiff to have an additional electricity connection. In
other words, except the oral averment, there is nothing on record for the
Court to believe the version of defendant. As per Section 106 of Bhartiya
Sakashya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 103 of erstwhile Indian Evidence Act,
1872) if the defendant wanted the court to believe that the purpose of
execution of documents [Ex. AD-7(colly)] was only for obtaining an
additional electricity connection, the burden to prove the same was upon the
defendant only. However, except a bald averment, he did not bring any
evidence to prove the same.
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 11 of 29
18. During the cross-examination of plaintiff/PW-1, several questions
were put to him regarding the sale of suit property bearing no. 548-B by his
mother, more particularly, about the circle rate of the said property in the
year 2013, whether the plaintiff showed the said transaction in his ITR of the
concerned financial year, his financial capacity in 2013, if he had informed
his other siblings about the alleged purchase of the said property from his
mother. Though the plaintiff admitted that he did not have Rs. 8,00,000/- in
his savings account or current account in the year 2013; however, none of
the questions pertain to the alleged purpose of executing the documents at
Ex. AD-7 (colly) i.e. for getting electricity connection in the said property.
Arguendo, even if it is assumed that plaintiff did not have financial capacity
to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- to his mother towards the sale consideration and he did
not pay so, this may, at best nullify the entire sale transaction for being no
consideration. However, this nowhere establishes that documents were
executed only for getting an additional electricity connection Therefore,
nothing is also not forthcoming even in the cross-examination of plaintiff to
substantiate the plea taken by the defendant.
19. In view of the above findings, issue no. 1 is decided against the
defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the property documents including GPA,
SPA, Will, agreement to sell, receipt and possession letter all dated
06.05.2003 were executed in the name of plaintiff at the instance of
defendant no.1 and the entire payment was made by defendant no.1
only? (OPD)
20. The burden to prove this issue was on defendant. It is worthwhile to
note that the GPA, SPA, Will, Agreement to sell, Receipt and Possession
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 12 of 29
letter, all dated 06.05.2003 [Ex. AD-8 (colly)] pertaining to suit property
bearing no. 548 are duly admitted by the defendants. The only objection
taken by them is that the said property was purchased by defendant no. 1 in
the name of plaintiff and entire consideration amount was paid by defendant
no. 1 only.
21. With regard to this issue, defendants have stated in their WS that the
defendant no. 1 was a government employee who retired on 31.01.1998. He
was also doing side business of sale and purchase of properties and also used
to sell milk of cows and buffaloes. From his hard earned money, defendant
no. 1 had purchased various properties in the names of his wife and children,
specially in the name of plaintiff being his elder son. That property bearing
no. 548 was purchased by defendant no. 1 in the name of plaintiff. It is also
stated that the entire consideration amount of the said property was paid by
the defendant no. 1 from his exclusive funds as the plaintiff and his entire
family were financially dependent on the defendant no. 1 till the year 2012
when the plaintiff started his own business, that too with the financial
support of defendant no. 1. It is further stated that the defendant no. 1 has
already declared the division of his properties among his children and
accordingly, the suit property bearing no. 548 was given to his other son
Kaleemuddin. These facts have been reiterated by both DW-2 and DW-3 in
their evidence affidavits.
22. During the cross-examination of defendant no. 2/DW-2 deposed that
the property bearing no. 548, Gali number 24, Jafrabad, Delhi-53 was
purchased by his father in the name of plaintiff in the year 2003. He has also
deposed that he cannot tell the exact salary of his father when he joined the
government service and at the time of his retirement. DW-2 has further
deposed that at the time of his death, his father was getting an approximate
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 13 of 29
pension of Rs. 29,000/-. He has further testified that his father was employed
in MCD, Shahdara, and apart from the government service, he was also
engaged in selling of milk, clothes and as a property dealer. However, he
could not tell whether his father had informed his employer about his other
vocations. DW-2 also could not tell the exact working hours of his father
with respect to his additional businesses. He also expressed his unawareness
if his father used to file ITR with regard to all the additional businesses.
DW-2 denied the suggestion of the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the
defendant no. 1 was not financially capable of purchasing the nine properties
as mentioned in the evidence affidavit of DW-2.
23. During the cross-examination of DW-3, he deposed that the property
bearing no. 548 was purchased by his father in the year 2003; however, he
does not know the consideration amount. The witness admitted that he does
not have any document to show that property no. 548 was purchased by his
father. With respect to the income of his father, DW-3 deposed that his
father was a driver in MCD who joined the services in the year 1959 and
retired on 30.01.1998. That at the time of joining, his salary was somewhere
between Rs. 90/- to Rs. 100/- per month. DW-3 denied the suggestion that at
the time of joining, salary of his father was Rs. 62/- per month. The witness
further deposed that he does not know whether his father had informed his
employer about the purchase of all the properties. The witness further
expressed his unawareness about filing of ITR by his father. He further
deposed that he does not have any document to show that his father was
engaged in other works apart from his government service.
24. It is clear from the evidence led by defendant no. 2 that he did not
bring any evidence to demonstrate that the consideration towards suit
property bearing no. 548 was paid by defendant no. 1 and not plaintiff. DW-
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 14 of 29
3 has candidly admitted that he does not have any document to show that
property no. 548 was purchased by his father. Both DW-2 and DW-3 have
also not been able to prove the financial capability of defendant no. 1 to
purchase property no. 548 along with 8 other properties as mentioned in
their respective evidence affidavits. Both the witnesses have deposed that
defendant no. 1 was a driver in MCD and as per DW-3, the salary of
defendant no. 1 was around Rs. 90/- to 100/- per month in the year 1959.
With respect to additional businesses of defendant no. 1 as claimed by both
DW-2 and DW-3, they failed to produce any documentary proof or any bank
statement of defendant no. 1. In fact, DW-3 conceded that he does not have
any document to show that his father was engaged in other work apart from
his government service. In the cross-examination of plaintiff, PW-1, he has
conceded that defendant no. 1 was receiving a pension of Rs. 29,000/- till
01.07.2013, however, ipso facto this also does not prove that the
consideration amount for purchase of suit property bearing no. 548 was paid
by defendant no. 1. Not a single question was put to the plaintiff during his
cross-examination pertaining to this issue. Hence, except for a bald
averment, not a speck of evidence has come on record to establish that
defendant no. 1 had paid the consideration amount for suit property bearing
no. 548.
25. In view of the above findings, issue no. 2 is decided against the
defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 3: Whether the defendants are the licensees of the
plaintiff in the suit property and the license has been duly
terminated? (OPP)
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 15 of 29
ISSUE NO. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of
suit property by way of mandatory injunction against the
defendants? (OPP)
26. Since both the above issues are interconnected, same shall be dealt
with together. The burden to prove both the issues was on plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s suit is based on the premise that he was the licensor and
defendants were his licensees in the suit property. The thrust is on the
ownership of plaintiff over the suit property. In this regard, plaintiff has
stated that he is the owner and in possession of the property bearing no. 548
(ad measuring 56 sq. yards) and 548-B (ad measuring 75 sq. yards) having
purchased in the year 2003 and 2013 respectively from his own funds. Both
the properties are stated to be combined/jointly built. He is living on the first
and second floor of the said properties and he permitted both the defendants,
being the family members to reside on the ground floor of the said properties
(i.e. the suit property) by way of a verbal settlement as licensees. That the
said properties were constructed in the year 2007 and since then parties have
been living together. It is further the case of plaintiff that defendant no. 2 is
the owner of property bearing no. 548-A, ad-measuring 40 sq. yards, gali no.
24, Jafrabad, Delhi-53 and plaintiff was using the ground floor of the said
property. In the month of August 2021, plaintiff and defendant no. 2 reached
upon a verbal settlement that each of them shall remove their respective
possessions from the ground floor of the property of each other and
handover peaceful possession of the same. Accordingly, the plaintiff vacated
the ground floor of property bearing no. 548-A; however, defendant no. 2
failed to fulfill his promise to vacate the ground floor of the suit property.
Defendant no. 1 also flatly refused to vacate the suit property and both the
defendants raised illegal wall and installed CCTV camera in the internal
portion of the property no. 548 and 548-B. It is further alleged by plaintiff
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 16 of 29
that defendant no. 1 in connivance with defendant no. 2 sent a false and
frivolous legal notice dated 06.06.2022 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff had sent a
reply to the same on 01.07.2022. By way of the said reply dated 01.07.2022,
the plaintiff terminated the license of both the defendants and asked them to
handover the peaceful and vacant physical possession of the suit property
within seven days from the date of service of the notice. However, they
failed to abide by the request.
27. As already noted above, the plaintiff has filed the present case and sought
the possession on the basis of his title. Prior to adjudication of the claims of
the plaintiff, this Court finds it necessary to consider whether, the documents
upon which he has based his claim are valid and legal. As seen so far, the
suit property i.e. ground floor of property bearing no. 548 and 548-B are
admittedly joint in nature and even from the perusal of site plan [Ex.
PW-1/J], there is no demarcation of both the properties. Though the
properties have separate survey numbers, they appear to be a single unit or
indivisible in nature as pleaded by both by parties. With respect to property
no. 548, plaintiff has relied upon the GPA, SPA, Will, Agreement to sell,
Receipt and Possession letter, all dated 06.05.2003 [Ex. AD-8 (colly)] which
are duly admitted by the defendants and these documents are admittedly
registered documents. With respect to these documents [Ex. AD-8 (colly)],
the only objection taken by defendant is that consideration amount for its
purchase was given by defendant no. 1, however, as already concluded in
issue no. 2, defendant has failed to prove the same. These documents having
been executed in the year 2003 are also not in the teeth of judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries P Ltd. (2) v. State of
Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656. Now, with respect to property bearing
no. 548-B, the plaintiff has relied upon the family GPA, Agreement to sell,
Receipt, Possession letter, Affidavit and Will, all dated 27.11.2013 [Ex. AD-
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 17 of 29
7 (colly)]. The execution of these documents are also admitted by the
defendants as both defendant no. 1 and 2 are witnesses to the same.
However, objection has been taken by defendant on the basis of these
documents being unregistered and also invalid as being hit by Suraj Lamp
(supra). Now, in order to prove the title in the suit property, it is necessary
that both the set of documents [i.e Ex. AD-7 (colly) and AD-8 (colly)] have
to be valid in the eyes of law as the suit property despite having separate
survey numbers, are joint in nature.
28. It is now pertinent to find the legality and validity of alleged title documents
at Ex. AD-7 (colly). It is admitted by plaintiff in his cross-examination that
except the Family GPA, all other documents [Ex. AD-7 (colly)] are
unregistered. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the judgment in
Suraj Lamp (supra) wherein it has been established that the transfer of
immovable property can only be legally done through a registered deed of
conveyance. Documents such as Power of Attorney (PoA), Agreement to
Sell, Will, Possession letter and Affidavit referred to as ‘GPA Sales’,
whether used alone or in combination, do not inherently confer ownership
rights. These types of transactions cannot replace the necessity of the
execution and the registration of the sale deeds. In nutshell, the ownership of
property cannot be transferred by just executing a General Power of
Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell and Will and only a duly stamped and
registered sale deed conveys valid title. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
examining each of the aforementioned documents individually, discussed
their respective nature and legal function in detail.
29. The relevant paras i.e. para 16 to 24 of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt.
Ltd.(2) v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656 are reproduced as
under for reference:
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 18 of 29
Scope of an agreement of sale
16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a contract of
sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any
interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas
Karsondas v. S.A Kamtam[(1977) 3 SCC 247] observed: (SCC
pp. 254-55, paras 32-33 & 37)
“32. A contract of sale does not of itself create any
interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly
declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(See Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [AIR 1967
SC 744 : (1967) 1 SCR 293].) The fiduciary character of
the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is
recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,
and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal
obligation created by a contract of sale is described in
Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an
obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the
ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest
or easement therein.
33. In India, the word ‘transfer’ is defined with reference
to the word ‘convey’…. The word ‘conveys’ in Section 5 of
the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of
conveying ownership.
***
37. … that only on execution of conveyance, ownership
passes from one party to another….”
17. In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra
[(2004) 8 SCC 614] this Court held: (SCC p. 619, para 10)
“10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act
to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the
transferor. It disentitles the transferor from disturbing
the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in
possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has
nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed
transferor who remains full owner of the property till it
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 19 of 29
is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed
in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect
possession against the proposed vendor cannot be
pressed into service against a third party.”
18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way
of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the
absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered
as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable
property can be transferred.
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a
registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of
the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not
confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable
property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A
of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale,
whether with possession or without possession, is not a
conveyance Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of
immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument
and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge
on its subject-matter.
Scope of power of attorney
20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard
to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The
power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor
authorises the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf
of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor
as if done by him (see Section 1-A and Section 2 of the Powers of
Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time
unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an
irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title
to the grantee.
21. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [(2005) 12 SCC 77]
this Court held: (SCC pp. 90 & 101, paras 13 & 52)
“13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed
by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 20 of 29
power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act
for the principal in one transaction or a series of
transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal
generally conferring necessary authority upon another
person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the
principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a
right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things
done by him and subject to the limitations contained in
the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the
donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a
document of convenience.
***
52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the
provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers of
Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have
noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to
enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases
where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is
revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under
such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor
subject of course to the powers granted to him by
reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for
his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act
of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the
donor and the donee.”
An attorney-holder may however execute a deed of conveyance
in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and
convey title on behalf of the grantor.
Scope of Will
22. A will is the testament of the testator. It is a posthumous
disposition of the estate of the testator directing distribution of
his estate upon his death. It is not a transfer inter vivos. The two
essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come
into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at
any time during the lifetime of the testator. It is said that so long
as the testator is alive, a will is not worth the paper on which it is
written, as the testator can at any time revoke it. If the testator,
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 21 of 29
who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation
of law, the will stands revoked. (See Sections 69 and 70 of the
Succession Act, 1925.) Registration of a will does not make it any
more effective.
Conclusion
23. Therefore, an SA/GPA/will transaction does not convey any
title nor creates any interest in an immovable property. The
observations by the Delhi High Court in Asha M. Jain v. Canara
Bank [(2001) 94 DLT 841], that the “concept of power-of-
attorney sales has been recognised as a mode of transaction”
when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/will are
unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the
general public into thinking that SA/GPA/will transactions are
some kind of a recognised or accepted mode of transfer and that
it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the
extent they recognise or accept SA/GPA/will transactions as
concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to
transfer, are not good law.
24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be
legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered
deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of “GPA sales”
or “SA/GPA/will transfers” do not convey title and do not amount
to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer
of immovable property. The courts will not treat such
transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as
conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest
in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds
of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act.
Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for
mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above
will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold
property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can
be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of
lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of
SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales.
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 22 of 29
30. The law, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforementioned judgment, clearly indicates that the documents presented by the
plaintiff, including the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell,
Affidavit, Will, Possession letter and Receipt, which are part of Ex. AD-7
(colly), do not satisfy the legal criteria for a registered conveyance deed as
required by the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act.
Consequently, these documents do not convey ownership rights in the absence
of a properly registered sale deed.
31. Further reliance may also be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1526), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has disapproved the
maintainability of a suit for possession of immovable property where the
plaintiff claims ownership in the immoveable property solely on the basis of
unregistered documents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that
when a claim of ownership is made, it must be substantiated through legally
recognized and registered documents. Unregistered documents, such as a
General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, or Will, do not provide a valid
title and cannot be used as a basis for claiming ownership or possession.
32. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand (D) Thr.
LRs. v. Suresh Chand and Anr (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1879), has set aside
the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which has affirmed the Ld.
Trial Court’s judgment by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for the
relief of possession, mandatory injunction, and declaration despite there being
no registered sale deed executed validating conveyance in the plaintiff’s
favour.
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 23 of 29
33. As a result, none of the documents pertaining to property bearing no.
548-B filed and relied upon by the plaintiff qualify as a ‘sale deed’ under the
law and do not, on their own, grant any ownership rights to the plaintiff in the
suit property. Since, in the present case, it is an admitted position that no
registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff
cannot be said to have acquired valid title to the suit property.
34. Even though the documents [Ex. AD-7(colly)] relied upon by plaintiff
does not transfer title in his favour, it could still be relied upon for a corollary
purpose of showing the nature of possession or the possessory rights of
plaintiff over the suit property. In this regard, Ex. AD-7 (colly) includes a
possession letter dated 27.11.2013 whereby the possession of property bearing
no. 548-B has been handed over to the plaintiff at the spot. However, it is
interesting to note that it is not the claim of the plaintiff that he came into the
possession of the suit property after their purchase, rather it is explicitly stated
in the plaint as well as the evidence affidavit [Ex. PW-1/1] that the properties
were developed and constructed in the year 2007 and since then parties to the
suit have been living together. It is further stated that plaintiff was living and
using the ground floor of property bearing no. 548-A (belonging to defendant
no. 2) since 2007 as a licensee. Thereafter, pursuant to a verbal settlement in
August 2021, he vacated and handed over the peaceful possession of the said
ground floor to defendant no. 2. Therefore, this Court sees no link between the
possession of suit property by plaintiff and the documents [Ex. AD-7 (colly)].
In other words, his possession did not originate from the alleged title
documents [Ex. AD-7 (colly)]. It is also pertinent to note that the suit property
in this case is the ground floor of combined property bearing no. 548 and 548-
B and nowhere the plaintiff has alleged that he had the possession of the same
at any point of time. Therefore, the plaintiff has also failed to show that he has
possessory rights or a better title to the suit property.
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 24 of 29
35. Even otherwise also, plaintiff has not been able to show the licensor-
licensee relationship as claimed by him and which has been vehemently
disputed by the defendants. The burden was on the plaintiff to prove the nature
of relationship and/or ownership as claimed by him, before going into
fulfillment of other incidents and ingredients of license like valid termination
of license and filing of the present suit within a reasonable time from such
termination.
36. There is no dispute in the proposition that license can be oral also
depending upon the relations of the parties and subsistence thereof can be
gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. “Licence” has been
defined in Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 as “Where one
person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to
do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor,
something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such
right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right
is called a licence”.
37. The grant of license may be express or implied which can be inferred
from the conduct of the parties. In case of oral licensor-licensee arrangements,
the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that such an arrangement existed. In G.
Jeffrey v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation 2013 SCC OnLine Mad
1082, it has been held in para 8 that the maxim “affirmatis est probare”
denotes that “he who affirms must prove”. Similarly, the maxim “affirmanti,
non neganti incumbit probatio” means that the burden of proof lies upon him
who affirms, not upon one who denies. It is therefore, the duty of the person
who affirms a particular fact to prove it and he cannot call upon the other sideCiv Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 25 of 29
to prove the negative aspect. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on the
plaintiff to adduce evidence that the defendants were licensees.
38. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 (sole witness). He has placed
reliance on his Aadhar card with address of house no. 550A, Gali no. 24,
Jafrabad, North East Delhi-110053 [Ex. AD-1] and electricity bill in his name
dated 17.05.2022 bearing house no. 548 [Ex. AD-5], electricity bill in the
name of Sarwari Begum dated 17.05.2022 bearing house no. 548-B [Ex. AD-
6]. All these three documents are admitted by defendant, however, none of
these documents establish licensor-licensee relationship between plaintiff and
the defendants. The electricity bill [Ex. AD-5] at best only establishes the
usage and possession of suit property in the year 2022. There is admittedly no
license agreement executed between the parties. Plaintiff has never claimed
that the defendants used to pay any license fee. Further, no family
member/neighbour or any other witness has been examined by the plaintiff to
prove the licensor-licensee relationship. The legal notice for termination of
license was also given by way of a reply to the notice dated 06.06.2022 [Ex.
AD-2] sent by defendant no. 1 asking him to handover the peaceful and vacant
possession of 1st and 2nd floor of property bearing no. 548-B, entire property
bearing no. 548 and entire property bearing no. 544. Plaintiff also could not
elicit anything from the defendant no. 2/DW-2 and witness/DW-3 during their
cross-examination which would establish licensor-licensee relationship. In
fact, not a single question was put to them on this aspect. Other than the oral
averments, there is absolutely nothing on record which shows the licensor-
licensee relationship, as claimed by the plaintiff.
39. When the plaintiff is asserting a certain fact (i.e. licensor-licensee
relationship) and the same is disputed by defendant, the bounden duty and
burden is on plaintiff to prove the same by bringing best evidence before the
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 26 of 29
Court; however, he has miserably failed to substantiate his oral averments
with any evidence whatsoever. On this aspect, the observations and findings in
G. Jeffrey v. M/S. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (supra) is
pertinent, wherein it was held that:
“19. When the plaintiff in the plaint itself realised that the
defendant went to the extent of disputing the title of the
plaintiff and also the relationship of licensor-licensee, then
the plaintiff was expected to be diligent in adducing the
best evidence available. But in this case, the plaintiff did
not choose to adduce such evidence.
20. No doubt, the judgment of the trial Court would reveal
that on the plaintiff’s side Exs. A1 to A76 were marked.
But absolutely there is nothing to indicate that any receipt
evidencing and exemplifying that the licence fee was
collected from the defendant or the defendant’s father,
was filed in Court.
21. The plaintiff mainly concentrated in convincing the
Court that they have been paying property tax and other
dues to the Government. But in order to establish the
licensor-licensee relationship, in my considered opinion,
the evidence was not adduced by the plaintiff and as such,
it is expected to adduce the best evidence in that regard.”
40. Further, the authority to grant a license is governed by Section 53 and
54 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. These provisions delineate both
competence of the grantor and the manner in which a license may be
conferred. As per Section 53 of Indian Easement Act, “53. A license may be
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 27 of 29
granted by any one in the circumstances and to the extent in and to which he
may transfer his interests in the property affected by the license”.
41. Section 53 specifies that a license can be granted by any individual
who has the legal capacity to transfer their interest in the property affected by
the license. This provision emphasizes that the authority to grant a license is
intrinsically connected to the ability to alienate proprietary interests.
Therefore, an individual without sufficient legal interest in the property
cannot confer license rights. When the plaintiff doesn’t have the ownership of
the suit property and also fails to prove his prior possession/possessory rights,
makes him disentitled to confer license to reside in the suit property to
defendants.
42. Keeping in view the discussion above, where the plaintiff has failed to
establish his ownership over the suit property and further failed to prove that
the defendants were inducted into the suit property as licensees, then relief of
possession cannot be given to him. Further, in such a scenario, there is no
question of discussing the validity of termination of license. Hence, both issue
no. 3 and 4 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE NO. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction as prayed for? (OPP)
ISSUE NO. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for occupation
charges/mesne profits and if yes, at what rate and for what
period? (OPP)
Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 28 of 29
43. Once the relief of possession is denied to the plaintiff, then the relief
of permanent injunction and occupation charges/mesne profits also goes ipso
facto in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 7: Relief
44. The entire case of the plaintiff i.e. relief of permanent and mandatory
injunction is based on averments of licensor-licensee relationship and the
ownership in the suit property but in the absence of any proof showing such
a relationship or ownership or even a better title for that matter, plaintiff
cannot be granted the said reliefs. In view of the findings given on all the
issues, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the scale of preponderance
of probabilities. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
45. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record
room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed
PADMA by PADMA
LADOL
LADOL 15:42:28
Date: 2026.04.07
+0530
(Padma Ladol)
Civil Judge-03, Shahdara,
KKD Courts, Delhi
07.04.2026
Note:-This Judgment contains 29 pages and all the pages have been checked
and signed by me.
Digitally signed PADMA by PADMA LADOL LADOL Date: 2026.04.07 15:42:34 +0530 Pronounced in open court today. (Padma Ladol) Civil Judge-03, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi 07.04.2026 Civ Suit No. 908/2022 Naeemuddin vs. Salimuddin & Anr Page 29 of 29