Delhi High Court
Saroj vs Surender Singh (Since Decd) & Anr on 27 July, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on:29th April, 2026
Pronounced on: 27th July , 2026
+ RFA 437/2026, CM APPL. 28883/2026
SMT. SAROJ
W/o Late Shri Surender
resident of Property No. B-27,
Road No.2 & 3 Gazipur Dairy Farm,
Delhi .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Akanksha Agrawal and Mr. Rohit
Kumar Gupta, Advocates.
versus
1. LATE SURENDER SINGH, (SINCE EXPIRED)
S/o Late Bhagwan Singh
R/o B-41, Gali No. 3, block G
West Arjun Nagar,
Krishna Nagar Delhi
2. SH. RAVINDER SINGH
S/o Shri Misri Lal,
R/o A-1, Village Kondli,
Delhi.
.....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order
XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC‘),
has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2026 of the
RFA 437/2026 Page 1 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
learned District Judge, decreeing the Suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs for
Possession, and grant of Mesne Profits @ Rs. 600/- per month from
01.10.2011 with an annual increase of 10% effective from 01.01.2012, till
delivery of possession. A Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the
Defendants from creating any third-party interest in the suit property, and
costs of the Suit, were also granted.
2. The Respondents/Plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 349/2010, (re-
numbered as CS No. 258/2015 and thereafter as CS No. 586/2016), for
Possession, Mandatory Injunction, Permanent Injunction and Mesne Profits
against the Appellant/Defendant No. 1, Smt. Saroj and Defendant Nos. 2 to
4, in respect of two rooms situated on the first floor of property bearing No.
B-27, admeasuring 200 square yards, situated at Road No. 2-3, Gazipur
Dairy Farm, Delhi-110096, (hereinafter referred to as suit property) as
shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the Plaint.
3. The facts in brief, as stated in the Plaint, are that Plaintiff No. 1, Sh.
Surender Singh, was the original owner of the suit property, which was
thereafter, transferred by him to Plaintiff No. 2, Sh. Ravinder Singh, by
virtue of a registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated
26.03.2010 executed before the Sub-Registrar, Delhi, for valuable
consideration, upon which possession of the suit property was delivered to
Plaintiff No. 2.
4. At the time of the said transfer, Plaintiff No. 1 informed Plaintiff No.
2 that two rooms on the first floor of the suit property, each admeasuring 12
feet x 19½ feet, shown in red colour in the site plan, was in the occupation
of the Appellant/Defendant No. 1, Smt. Saroj, who had been permitted by
Plaintiff No. 1 to occupy the said two rooms as a licensee, for the purpose of
RFA 437/2026 Page 2 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
looking after his dairy work, without any right, title or interest of any nature
therein. Upon purchase of the suit property, Plaintiff No. 2 stepped into the
shoes of Plaintiff No. 1, as the owner-landlord.
5. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, namely Sh. Leelu, Sh. Rahul and Sh. Rohit,
being the sons of the Appellant/Defendant No. 1, were residing along with
the Appellant/Defendant No. 1, in the said suit property on the same
permissive licence basis, traceable to her occupation.
6. Plaintiff No. 1 asked the Defendants to vacate the said two rooms, to
which they initially agreed. However, the Defendants thereafter, turned
dishonest and began demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from Plaintiff No. 1.
Furthermore, Defendant No. 2, Sh. Leelu, along with the other Defendants,
lodged a false complaint against Plaintiff No. 1 at Police Station Gazipur,
wrongly mentioning his name as “Sardar Sunder Singh”.
7. Defendant No. 2, Sh. Leelu, also instituted Civil Suit No. 104/2010
against Plaintiff No. 1, again describing him as “Sardar Sunder Singh”,
claiming tenancy rights in the suit property at a rent of Rs. 600/- per month
exclusive of electricity charges, and asserted payment of Rs. 50,000/- as
security. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, rejected the
Plaint for want of cause of action, vide Order dated 15.03.2010.
8. The Plaintiff No. 2 vide Legal Notice dated 07.04.2010, terminated
the licence with effect from 30.04.2010, and demanded mesne profits at Rs.
5,000/- per month from 01.05.2010. The Notice was sent both by UPC and
by registered A.D. post to all four Defendants; however, the registered A.D.
envelopes were returned with the postal remark “I.D.”.
9. A second Legal Notice dated 29.04.2010 was thereafter, issued by
Plaintiff No. 2 bearing the correct name of Plaintiff No. 1, both in his
RFA 437/2026 Page 3 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
personal capacity and as General Attorney of Plaintiff No. 1. The registered
A.D. envelopes of the said Notice were also returned with the remarks “I.D.”
and thereafter, “unclaimed”.
10. A third Legal Notice dated 16.08.2011 was thereafter, issued to all
four Defendants by registered A.D. post, in view of the directions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court restraining the issuance of Notices under Postal
Certificate. Due to inadvertent omission of the road number in the address,
the said envelopes were returned with the postal remark “Bina Road Number
Ke Pata Adhura hai”.
11. The said Notice was re-sent on 24.08.2011 with the road number duly
added, and all four registered A.D. envelopes were returned with the postal
remark “refused”, on 25.08.2011.
12. The Respondents/Plaintiffs asserted that the licence of the Defendants
stood terminated w.e.f. 30.09.2011, and the defendants have continued in
the suit premises, as trespassers.
13. It is further averred that after receipt of the Notices, the Defendants
started threatening to part with possession of the suit property, to create
third-party interests therein, and to make additions and alterations therein.
With dishonest intent, the Defendants along with Sh. Sanjay, brother of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1, attempted to forcibly occupy two additional
rooms on the first floor shown in green colour in the site plan. When their
attempt was resisted by the servant of Plaintiff No. 2 and his nephew Sh.
Shahzad Singh, a false FIR bearing No. 151/2011 was registered against
Plaintiff No. 2 and others, at Police Station Gazipur.
14. The Respondents/Plaintiffs thus, sought a Possession of the suit
property; Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to remove their
RFA 437/2026 Page 4 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
goods, articles and belongings therefrom; Permanent Injunction restraining
the Defendants from parting with possession, creating any third-party
interest, or making any additions or alterations in the suit property; and
future Mesne Profits at Rs. 5,000/- per month, with effect from 01.10.2011
along with interest at 18% per annum till delivery of possession, and costs
of the Suit.
15. Defendant No. 2 Sh. Leelu was proceeded against ex parte vide
Order dated 25.01.2023, no Written Statement having been filed on his
behalf.
16. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed a joint Written Statement, wherein
they took the preliminary objections that the Suit was not maintainable;
that the Respondents/Plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean
hands and had concealed material facts; that the Suit had been instituted on
false and fabricated grounds; that the Respondents/Plaintiffs had procured
false and fabricated documents in collusion with each other; that Plaintiff
No. 2 was neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property; and that
the General Power of Attorney relied upon by Plaintiff No. 2 had no validity
in the eyes of law, and could not confer any ownership upon him.
17. It was further claimed that the Suit was grossly undervalued for the
purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, inasmuch as the market value of the
portion in the possession of the Defendants at the time of filing of the Suit
was in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs, and consequently the learned District Judge
lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.
18. On merits, the entire claim of the Respondents/Plaintiffs was
vehemently denied. It was asserted that the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 had
purchased the suit property from Plaintiff No. 1 in the year 2006, for a total
RFA 437/2026 Page 5 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
sale consideration of Rs. 10,50,000/-, paid in cash, out of the proceeds
realised from the sale of her property situated at Khoda Village, Ghaziabad.
Upon receipt of the said amount, Plaintiff No. 1 had executed various
documents in favour of the Appellant/Defendant No. 1, and since the year
2006, the Defendants had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit
property, as owners.
19. It was further asserted that the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 was in
possession of all the seven rooms on the first floor of the suit property, along
with the spaces attached thereto, and not merely of two rooms, as asserted
by the Respondents/Plaintiffs.
20. It was asserted that Plaintiff No. 2 had forcibly trespassed into the
suit property and snatched the original title documents belonging to the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1, in respect of which FIR No. 191/2011 under
Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC was registered against him, at Police Station
Gazipur. It was also alleged that Plaintiff No. 2 had taken away cash
amounting to approximately Rs. 4,50,000/-, 10 tolas of gold and 7 kilograms
of silver, from the premises.
21. It was denied that there existed any landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties, or that any Rent Agreement had ever been executed,
and consequently the claim for mesne profits and damages, was untenable. It
was also denied that any Notice, whether by UPC or by registered A.D. post,
had ever been received by the Defendants.
22. Defendant No. 2 admitted that he had no independent right, title
or interest in the suit property, except as being a son of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1.
23. The Defendants prayed for dismissal of the Suit.
RFA 437/2026 Page 6 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
24. The Respondents/Plaintiffs filed a Replication to the Written
Statement, denying the contentions raised therein, and reiterating the
assertions made in the Plaint.
25. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were
framed on 03.05.2014:
"(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable? (OPD)
(ii) Whether the suit has not been properly valued
for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD)
(iii) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the decree
of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? (OPP)
(iv) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the decree
of possession of the suit property i.e. two rooms on the
first floor of property No. B-27 situated at Road No. 2-3,
Gazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi-110096, as prayed for?
(OPP)
(v) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the decree
of permanent injunction, as prayed for? (OPP)
(vi) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the mesne
profits, as prayed for? (OPP)
(vii) Relief.”
26. On 25.01.2023, an additional Issue was framed by the learned
District Judge, which reads as under:
“Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Nos. 1, 3
and 4.”
27. In support of their case, the Respondents/Plaintiffs examined PW-1
Sh. Ravinder Singh, Plaintiff No. 2, who tendered his evidence by way of
RFA 437/2026 Page 7 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, and relied upon the site plan Ex. PW-1/1; the
registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 26.03.2010 Ex. PW-
1/2; the three sets of legal notices dated 07.04.2010, 29.04.2010 and
16.08.2011 as Ex. PW-1/3, Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. PW-1/17 respectively, along
with their postal receipts and returned envelopes as Ex. PW-1/4 to Ex. PW-
1/7, Ex. PW-1/9 to Ex. PW-1/16 and Ex. PW-1/18 to Ex. PW-1/29; and the
certified copies of the pleadings, orders and proceedings in Civil Suit No.
104/2010 filed by Defendant No. 2 as Ex. PW-1/30 to Ex. PW-1/36.
28. PW-2 Sh. Surender Singh, Plaintiff No. 1, tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A, adopting the case set up in the Plaint and the
documents proved by PW-1. The cross-examination of PW-2 was deferred
at the request of the learned counsel for the Defendants; however, PW-2
expired thereafter, and could not be cross-examined.
29. PW-3, Sh. Shyam Vir Singh, the attesting witness to the Will dated
26.03.2010, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-3/A, and
proved the original Will as Ex. PW-3/1.
30. In support of her defence, the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 Smt. Saroj
examined herself as DW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit
Ex. DW-1/A, on the lines of her Written Statement. She relied upon the
copy of FIR No. 191/2011 registered at Police Station Gazipur as Ex. DW-
1/2.
31. The learned District Judge, upon appreciation of the pleadings and
the evidence led by the parties, held that the registered irrevocable General
Power of Attorney dated 26.03.2010 Ex. PW-1/2 in favour of Plaintiff No. 2,
proved his proprietary title. Appellant/Defendant No. 1 along with
RFA 437/2026 Page 8 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in their Written Statement, had unequivocally
admitted Plaintiff No. 1 to be the original owner of the suit property.
32. The execution of GPA in favour of Plaintiff No.2 was proved by PW-
2 Sh. Surender Singh, Plaintiff No. 1, though he died before his cross-
examination could be completed. An objection was taken by the Defendants
that the cross-examination of PW-2 could not be conducted, and his
evidence to prove GPA in favour of Plaintiff No.2 was inadmissible, the
learned District Judge, held it to be admissible by placing reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Krishan Dayal v. Chandu Ram, ILR (1969) II
Delhi 1090, wherein it was held that where death of a witness prevents his
cross-examination under circumstances that no responsibility can be
attributed to the witness or to his party, the testimony of the said witness in
examination-in-chief remains admissible and is capable of being relied
upon, subject to the appropriate weight being attached to the same.
33. The learned District Judge noticed and further observed that in view
of the Order dated 30.01.2020, of its learned predecessor, the Suit was
founded on the assertion of a licensor-licensee relationship, and that
Plaintiff No. 2 had been permitted, vide Order dated 03.08.2023, to
represent the estate of the deceased Plaintiff No. 1, and accordingly held that
the plaintiff had the locus to maintain and continue the Suit after the demise
of erstwhile owner/Plaintiff No.1.
34. The learned District Judge further held that as the original ownership
of Plaintiff No. 1 stood established, the applicability of Suraj Lamp &
Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, was not
applicable to the facts of the present case. Even if Plaintiff No. 2, was not
treated as the absolute owner, he derived substantial rights under the
RFA 437/2026 Page 9 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
irrevocable registered General Power of Attorney and would in any event,
have a better title vis-Ã -vis the Defendants, who had failed to establish any
lawful derivation of ownership in themselves.
35. It was further held that the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 was unable to
substantiate her claim of having purchased the suit property in the year 2006
from Plaintiff No. 1, for a sale consideration of Rs. 10,50,000/- paid in cash,
as no registered conveyance had been placed on record; no independent
witness had been examined to prove the alleged execution of any document
in her favour, and no particulars of the date, place or manner of payment of
the alleged sale consideration had been furnished. Moreover, DW-1 in her
cross-examination, was unable to state when the alleged sum was paid, and
had further described herself as a tenant in the suit property, which was
inconsistent with the plea of ownership, set up in the Written Statement.
36. Accordingly, Suit for Possession, was allowed in favour of the
Plaintiff.
37. The learned District Judge also granted mesne profits, Rs. @ 600/-
per month from 01.10.2011 till delivery of possession, with an annual
increase of 10% with effect from 01.01.2012, till the possession was
delivered.
38. A Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from
creating any third-party interest in the suit property, was also granted.
39. Accordingly, the Suit was decreed, vide the impugned Judgment and
Decree dated 13.02.2026 granting the following reliefs:
(i) recovery of possession of the two rooms on the
first floor of property bearing No. B-27, Road No. 2-3,
RFA 437/2026 Page 10 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
Gazipur Dairy Farm, Delhi-110096, as shown in red
colour in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1;
(ii) mesne profits at Rs. 600/- per month from
01.10.2011 with an annual increase of 10% effective from
01.01.2012, till delivery of possession;
(iii) Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the
Defendants from creating any third-party interest in the
suit property
(iv) costs of the Suit.
40. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the Appellant/Defendant
No. 1 has preferred the present Regular First Appeal.
41. The grounds of challenge raised on behalf of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1 are that upon the demise of Plaintiff No. 1 in the
year 2016, the Suit stood abated under Order XXII CPC for want of
substitution of his legal representatives, and could not have been continued
by Plaintiff No. 2 on the strength of the General Power of Attorney alone;
that the agency created under the irrevocable General Power of Attorney
dated 26.03.2010 stood terminated upon the death of the principal under
Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and that a Power of Attorney
creates only a principal-agent relationship, without transferring any right,
title or interest in immovable property. Reliance is placed on Suraj Lamp &
Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656; M.S.
Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula, 2025 INSC 273; and Mahnoor Fatima Imran
v. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) No. 1866/2024.
42. It is further contended that the alleged unregistered Will dated
26.03.2010 was placed on record for the first time only on 15.01.2024, i.e.
RFA 437/2026 Page 11 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
nearly fourteen years after its alleged execution and nearly eight years after
the demise of the testator. PW-3 Sh. Shyam Vir Singh admitted in his
cross-examination that he had been called as a witness by Plaintiff No. 2,
who was himself the beneficiary under the said Will; the said Will has not
been proved in accordance with law, and the propounder has not discharged
the heavy onus arising from the suspicious circumstances.
43. It is contended that Plaintiff No. 1 was never subjected to cross-
examination, having remained absent on 02.07.2015, 28.09.2015 and
06.01.2016 before expiring in the year 2016, and that the learned District
Judge committed a grave error, in relying upon his uncross-examined
testimony.
44. It is further asserted that the licensor-licensee relationship pleaded by
the Respondents/Plaintiffs, was unsupported by any Rent Agreement, receipt
or documentary proof. Moreover, the mesne profits at Rs. 600/- per month
with an annual increase of 10%, is unsupported by any evidence on record.
45. Further, the decree of possession is being sought to be executed by the
Respondents/Plaintiffs in respect of the entire first floor of the suit property,
though the operative decree is confined to two rooms only.
46. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1, reiterating the grounds raised in the
Memorandum of Appeal.
47. On behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs, it is contended that the
impugned Judgment and Decree, does not warrant any interference. The
Appellant/Defendant No. 1 along with Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, in their own
Written Statement, have unequivocally acknowledged Plaintiff No. 1 to be
RFA 437/2026 Page 12 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
the original owner of the suit property. They cannot be permitted to resile
from the said admission.
48. The plea of ownership set up by the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 on the
basis of an alleged oral purchase for Rs. 10,50,000/- in the year 2006, is
wholly unsupported by any registered conveyance, any independent witness
or any receipt of payment. Further, DW-1, Smt. Saroj had volunteered in
her cross-examination, the case of an antecedent tenancy at Rs. 500/- per
month, which is entirely at variance with her plea of ownership, set up in her
Written Statement.
49. It is further submitted that the ratio of Suraj Lamp (supra) has no
application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the case of the
Respondents/Plaintiffs is not founded on any transfer of title by virtue of the
General Power of Attorney to a stranger, but on the licensor-licensee
relationship, which stands established on the record.
50. On the plea of abatement, it is submitted that Plaintiff No. 2 stood
duly permitted to represent the estate of the deceased Plaintiff No. 1, vide
Order dated 03.08.2023 of the learned District Judge, and that Order was
never assailed by the Defendants, which has attained finality.
51. It is further submitted that the mesne profits at Rs. 600/- per month is
a modest figure, which is anchored in the Order dated 27.05.2016 of the
learned District Judge under Order XV-A CPC, and is consistent with the
rent of Rs. 500/- per month admitted by the Appellant/Defendant No. 1
herself, and with the rate of Rs. 600/- per month pleaded by Defendant No. 2
in Civil Suit No. 104/2010.
52. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the
Respondents/Plaintiffs, reiterating the aforesaid contentions.
RFA 437/2026 Page 13 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
Submissions heard and record perused.
53. The Respondents/Plaintiffs instituted the Suit for Possession,
Mandatory Injunction, Permanent Injunction and Mesne Profits in respect
of the two rooms on the first floor of property bearing No. B-27, Gazipur
Dairy Farm, Delhi, shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1.
54. The claim of possession was based on Plaintiff No. 1, being the
original owner, who had transferred the property in question to Plaintiff No.
2, by a registered irrevocable GPA dated 26.03.2010 Ex. PW-1/2, and
sought possession from the the Appellant/Defendant No. 1, who were in
occupation of the said two rooms as a licensee, and were permitted by
Plaintiff No. 1, to look after his dairy work.
55. The Appellant/Defendant No. 1, per contra, claimed ownership on the
basis of an alleged purchase from Plaintiff No. 1 in the year 2006 for Rs.
10,50,000/- paid in cash.
I. Maintainability of the Suit:
56. The Appellants took objection to the maintainability of the Suit which
rests on four premises: firstly, that the agency under the registered
irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 26.03.2010 stood terminated
under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, upon demise of plaintiff
No.1; secondly, that the GPA in favour of Plaintiff No.2 was not duly
proved; thirdly, that the Plaint was not signed by Plaintiff No. 1; and
fourthly, that the Suit stood abated under Order XXII CPC upon the demise
of Plaintiff No. 1 in the year 2016.
(a) Whether the Agency stood Terminated under Section 201 of the
Indian Contract Act:
RFA 437/2026 Page 14 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
57. An objection had been taken by the Appellants that on demise of
Plaintiff No.1, the GPA ceased to be of any effect and the agency created in
favour of Plaintiff No.2, got automatically terminated.
58. Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 carves out an exception
in respect of an agency coupled with an interest, which cannot be terminated
to the prejudice of the interest so created. The mere use of the expression
“irrevocable” is not, by itself, determinative.
59. The GPA Ex. PW-1/2 records execution for valuable consideration
and contemporaneous delivery of possession, in favour of Plaintiff No. 2.
The authority so created was not a bare agency, but was coupled with an
interest within the meaning of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act,
having been created for valuable consideration, to secure the interest
transferred to Plaintiff No. 2 in the suit property.
60. The Supreme Court, in the case of P. Seshareddy (D) v. State of
Karnataka, 2022 INSC 1191, has reaffirmed that Section 201 Indian
Contract Act cannot be read in isolation of Section 202, and has
authoritatively held that where an interest has accrued in favour of the
holder of a Power of Attorney in the subject-matter of the agency, the said
agency is not terminated to the prejudice of such interest, even upon the
demise of the principal.
61. The principle is traced back to the settled exposition in Seth Loon
Karan Sethiya v. Ivan E. John, AIR 1969 SC 73, wherein it was
authoritatively laid down that “where the agency is created for valuable
consideration and authority is given to effectuate a security or to secure
interest of the agent, the authority cannot be revoked.”
RFA 437/2026 Page 15 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
62. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, the GPA
Ex. PW-1/2 having been executed for valuable consideration,
contemporaneously with delivery of possession of the suit property in favour
of Plaintiff No. 2, constitutes an agency coupled with an interest, and is not
brought to an end by the operation of Section 201, upon the demise of
Plaintiff No. 1.
63. Therefore the assertion of the Appellants that plaintiff lost any right to
continue the Suit after the demise of Plaintiff No.1, is without any merit.
(b) Whether the GPA in favour of Plaintiff No.2 was duly proved:
64. PW-2 Sh. Surender Singh, plaintiff N0.1 deposed that he had executed
the registered GPA dated 26.03.2010 Ex. PW-1/2, in favour of the plaintiff
No.2. The cross-examination of PW-2 was deferred at the request of the
learned counsel for the Defendants. Plaintiff No. 1 expired in the year 2016,
and the cross-examination could not be completed before the demise of PW-
2. Nothing has been shown on record to suggest that the
Respondents/Plaintiffs were responsible for the said eventuality.
65. In Krishan Dayal v. Chandu Ram, ILR (1969) II Delhi 1090, this
Court held that where death of a witness prevents his cross-examination
under circumstances not attributable to the witness or his party, the
testimony in examination-in-chief remains admissible, subject to the
appropriate weight being attached to the same.
66. Therefore, the testimony of PW-2, was not unreliable especially when
the defendants have not questioned the execution of GPA, but only its
validity to transfer ownership rights to Plaintiff No. 2, on its basis. The GPA
was duly proved also by the independent evidence of Plaintiff No.2 and the
admissions of the Appellant herself.
RFA 437/2026 Page 16 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
(c) Whether the Suit stood Abated on the Demise of Plaintiff No. 1:
67. The plaintiff no.1 died in the year 2016. The learned District Judge,
vide Order dated 03.08.2023, permitted Plaintiff No. 2 to represent the estate
of the deceased Plaintiff No. 1. The said Order was never assailed by the
Defendants and has attained finality. The plea cannot be reagitated in the
present Appeal.
(d) Whether the Non-Signing of the Plaint by Plaintiff No. 1, Renders
the Suit Defective:
68. The Plaint was instituted by Plaintiff No. 2 on the strength of the
registered irrevocable GPA dated 26.03.2010 Ex. PW-1/2, executed in his
favour by Plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1, having already transferred his
interest in the suit property to Plaintiff No. 2, was thus, not a necessary party
to the present Suit. At best, he could have been a witness to support the case,
to prove that the transfer had been made in favour of Plaintiff No. 2. The
Plaint was thus not, in the first instance, required to be signed by him.
69. Even otherwise, the Plaint was duly signed by Plaintiff No.2 who was
also the GPA holder of plaintiff No.1. Therefore, the Plaint was duly signed
and instituted on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
70. The objections to the maintainability of the Suit, on all the
aforesaid grounds, is accordingly held to be without any merit.
II. Whether the Respondents/Plaintiffs established a Better Right to
Possession of the Suit Property than the Appellant:
71. The Suit instituted by the Respondents/Plaintiffs is not a Suit for
Declaration of Title, but a Suit for Possession, Mandatory Injunction,
Permanent Injunction and Mesne Profits, founded on the assertion of a
RFA 437/2026 Page 17 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
licensor-licensee relationship between the parties. The enquiry, therefore, is
not directed to the absolute ownership of the suit property, but to the relative
rights of the parties in relation to the suit property, shown in red colour in
the site plan Ex. PW-1/1.
72. The Appellant/Defendant No. 1 along with Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, in
paragraph No., 3 of their Written Statement, had themselves stated as under:
“the defendants are the owner of the property and they
have already paid Rs. 10,50,000/- to the plaintiff no.1
after selling property situated in Khoda Village and the
plaintiff no.1 executed the various documents in favour of
the defendant no.1”.
73. The said averment clearly acknowledges Plaintiff No. 1 to be the
original owner of the suit property, and traces the alleged title of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1, to a transaction of purchase from Plaintiff No. 1.
The enquiry, therefore, narrows down to two questions: (a)whether the plea
of purchase set up by the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 is proved, and
(b)whether the licensor-licensee relationship asserted by the
Respondents/Plaintiffs, has been proved.
(a) Whether the Appellants Proved their Proprietary rights by Purchase
of Suit Property:
74. The defendant no.1, though had asserted that they had purchased the
suit property from Plaintiff No.1 on payment of Rs. 10,50,000/-, and that
this money was arranged by sale of the Khoda property, but no document
whatsoever in favour of the Appellant/Defendant No. 1, has been claimed to
have been executed or placed on record; no independent witness to the
alleged execution of any document has been examined; no receipt of
RFA 437/2026 Page 18 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
payment of the alleged consideration of Rs. 10,50,000/- has been produced;
and no particulars as to the date, place or manner of execution of the alleged
documents, or of payment of the alleged consideration, have been furnished.
75. The Appellant/Defendant No. 1, in her cross-examination dated
23.12.2025, has admitted that “We have not inspected the ownership
documents of Sardar Surender Singh”, and that “I do not remember when I
paid the alleged amount to Sardar Surender Singh”. Even the alleged source
of the sale consideration, i.e. the sale of the Khoda property, is not supported
by any document placed on the record, and on being questioned, the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1 was unable to state from where such documents
could be produced.
76. The plea of the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 that the alleged title
documents in her favour, were forcibly snatched by Plaintiff No. 2, and that
FIR No. 191/2011 Ex. DW-1/2 was registered against him, is not borne out
from the record. The FIR contains no allegation of the snatching of any title
documents. More significantly, in the said FIR, the Appellant/Defendant No.
1 has herself described her occupation as one of a tenant for the last four to
five years, which averment is inconsistent with the plea of ownership since
the year 2006, set up in the Written Statement.
77. The said inconsistency is reinforced by the admissions of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1 in her cross-examination dated 16.10.2025,
wherein she has volunteered that “Firstly, we took the property on rent from
Surender Singh (plaintiff no.1) and then I purchased the same from him”,
and that “The rent was around Rs. 500/- per month”. She has further
admitted that “There was no rent agreement” and that “I have not any
written proof that I had taken the suit property on rent”.
RFA 437/2026 Page 19 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
78. No such plea of an antecedent tenancy is to be found in the Written
Statement or in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A, and the same
has surfaced for the first time in the cross-examination. Similarly, when a
portion of the said FIR was read over to her during her further cross-
examination dated 23.12.2025, wherein she is recorded as having stated that
she was residing on the first floor of the suit property on rent from four to
five years, she denied having made the said statement; even though the said
FIR Ex. DW-1/2 had been produced and affirmed by her and admitted by
her in her own cross-examination to contain “true facts”.
79. On a preponderance of probabilities, the plea of purchase set up by
the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 admits of no other conclusion, than that of
being an afterthought, unsupported by any documentary evidence and
contradicted by her own testimony and by the contents of the FIR relied
upon by her.
80. The next plea of the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 that the entire first
floor of the suit property is in her possession, and not merely the two rooms
in question, also requires consideration. In his cross-examination dated
12.07.2025, PW-1 has admitted that “There are approximate 6-7 rooms on
the first floor which in possession of the defendant”. The said admission,
however, goes only to the factum of physical occupation of these rooms
unauthorizedly by the Appellants without any right or permission, and does
not in any manner, establish any right, title or interest of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1, in the said rooms. Physical possession, without
more, does not ripen into lawful entitlement.
81. The pleaded case of the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 rests wholly on
the alleged purchase of the suit property in the year 2006; she has led no
RFA 437/2026 Page 20 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
evidence, and set up no independent plea, of any other basis on which her
occupation of the additional rooms, could be justified in law. Once the said
plea of purchase is disbelieved, the said additional rooms stand on no better
footing than the two rooms in question, and the Appellants stand established
to be in unauthorized occupation of the entire premises.
82. The Appellants have miserably failed to establish any proprietary
rights in the suit property.
(b) Whether there Existed a Relationship of the licensor-licensee:
83. On the question of the licensor-licensee relationship, the case set up
by the Respondents/Plaintiffs is that the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 was
permitted by Plaintiff No. 1 to occupy the said two rooms for the purpose of
looking after his dairy work, and that Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, being her sons,
were also residing therein on the same permissive basis.
84. The said case finds support from the following three circumstances
proved on the record. First, the irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated
26.03.2010 Ex. PW-1/2, executed by Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Plaintiff
No. 2, is a duly registered document carrying a presumption of due
execution under the Registration Act, 1908; the said document records the
delivery of possession to Plaintiff No. 2 and has not been questioned by the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1 by way of any independent proceeding.
85. Second, PW-2 Sh. Surender Singh, being Plaintiff No. 1 and the
admitted original owner, tendered his evidence on 19.01.2015 by way of
affidavit Ex. PW-2/A, wherein he affirmed the transfer of the suit property
in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 by virtue of the said GPA, and further affirmed
that the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 was permitted to occupy the said two
rooms as a licensee, for looking after his dairy work.
RFA 437/2026 Page 21 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
86. Third, Defendant No. 2 Sh. Leelu, being the son of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1, himself instituted Civil Suit No. 104/2010
against Plaintiff No. 1, wherein he pleaded that his mother was in
occupation of the suit property as a tenant at a rent of Rs. 600/- per month
exclusive of electricity charges. The said Suit was dismissed by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karkardooma Courts, vide Judgment dated
15.03.2010 Ex. PW-1/36, whereby the plea of tenancy was not accepted and
the Suit was rejected for want of cause of action.
87. The aforesaid three circumstances, when read with the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1’s own admission that she initially took the
property on rent and then allegedly purchased the same from Plaintiff No. 1,
and with her further admission in the FIR Ex. DW-1/2 that she was residing
as a tenant, clearly establishes that the possession of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1 was, at all points of time, referable to the
permission of Plaintiff No. 1, and was not adverse to his title.
88. It is pertinent to also observe that though the plea of initial tenancy
was taken and payment of rent of Rs.500, was claimed by the defendant, but
no cogent evidence of any kind has been produced to corroborate that she
entered into the suit property as a tenant.
89. In any case, once the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 herself claimed to
have acquired ownership by an alleged subsequent purchase, a claim which
has already been disbelieved, her averment of initial permissive occupation,
whether characterised as tenancy or licence, does not assist her in resisting
the decree. Her possession having originated with the permission of Plaintiff
No. 1, and no valid transfer of title in her favour having been proved, she
cannot in law set up a title in herself to defeat the possessory claim of the
RFA 437/2026 Page 22 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
person under whom her occupation commenced. The plea of initial tenancy,
being unaccompanied by any Rent Agreement or documentary proof, and
further contradicted by her own subsequent plea of ownership, is of no
assistance to her.
90. Once the character of the possession of the Appellant/Defendant No.
1 is established to be that of a licensee, a licensee is estopped from denying
the title of the licensor.
91. The Supreme Court, in Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, (1985) 2 SCC
332, has authoritatively laid down that a defendant who is a licensee must be
deemed to be always a licensee, and that it is not open to him, during the
subsistence and after the revocation of the licence, to set up a title to the
property in himself or in anyone else.
92. The said principle is an application of the doctrine of estoppel
embodied in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and operates as a
rule of exclusion, precluding the licensee from disputing the title of the
licensor.
93. The said principle applies with full force, to the case of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1. Her own admissions establish that her
possession originated with the permission of Plaintiff No. 1. Once the origin
of possession is shown to be permissive, the Appellant cannot, in the
absence of any proof of transfer of title, dispute the title of the person under
whom such possession commenced. The plea of a subsequent purchase,
having remained wholly unsubstantiated, cannot defeat the
Respondents/Plaintiffs’ claim for possession.
94. Learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that the entire case
of the Respondents, is based on a registered GPA in favour of the Plaintiff
RFA 437/2026 Page 23 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
No. 2. The reliance placed on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 on
the judgments of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v.
State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656; M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula,
2025 INSC 273; and Mahnoor Fatima Imran v. Visweswara Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd., SLP (C) No. 1866/2024, is misplaced. The said judgments lay
down the settled proposition that a General Power of Attorney, a Sale
Agreement, or a Will, whether singly or in combination, does not by itself
constitute a completed transfer of title in immovable property, and that title
in immovable property can be conveyed only through a registered deed of
conveyance. The said proposition, however, does not apply to the facts of
the case of the Appellant/Defendant No. 1.
95. The case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs is not that title in the suit
property has been conveyed to Plaintiff No. 2 by virtue of the General
Power of Attorney; rather, the case is that the possession of the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1 is that of a licensee, permissively granted by
Plaintiff No. 1 Surender Singh, who is the admitted original owner.
96. Furthermore, the contention that the Plaintiff No. 2 could not have
claimed any ownership in the Suit property is completely misplaced as it has
already been discussed that Plaintiff No. 2 derives his rights from Plaintiff
No. 1, the admitted original owner, through the registered irrevocable GPA
Ex. PW-1/2, the validity of which has already been upheld. The
Respondents’ case is not founded on any purchase by virtue of an Agreement
to Sell. Even otherwise, the Respondents have a better proprietary right vis-
à -vis the Appellant, who has been unable to establish any better title than
that of the Respondents in the suit property.
RFA 437/2026 Page 24 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
97. The Plaintiff no doubt had produced the Will dated 26.03.2010,
Ex.PW-3/1 but again, as already stated above, the Plaintiff had succeeded on
a better proprietary right and not on the basis of Will, Ex.PW-3/1. Therefore,
even though, the Will has not been proved by examination of attesting
witness, in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, the title of the
Plaintiff No. 2 is not based on this Will. Even if the Will is held to be not
proved in favour of the Plaintiff No. 2, then too, he has a title superior to that
of the Appellants and therefore, entitled to recovery of possession.
98. On a conspectus of the aforesaid, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have
established a better right to possession of the suit property vis-Ã -vis the
Appellant/Defendant No. 1, who has been unable to establish any right, title
or interest in the suit property whatsoever.
III. Whether the Suit was valued properly for the purpose of Court
Fees:
99. As regards the plea of undervaluation, the onus to establish improper
valuation was on the Defendants; no evidence in support thereof has been
adduced. The learned District Judge has, rightly rejected the said objection,
and no case for interference is made out.
IV. Whether the Award of Mesne Profits warrants Interference:
100. On the claim of mesne profits, though the Respondents/Plaintiffs had
claimed the same at Rs. 5,000/- per month, no independent evidence in the
nature of a valuer’s report or comparative rent was led in support thereof.
The learned District Judge has, however, anchored the mesne profits at Rs.
600/- per month with reference to its own Order dated 27.05.2016 passed
RFA 437/2026 Page 25 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
under Order XV-A of the CPC, and has directed an annual increase of 10%
with effect from 01.01.2012.
101. The said rate is not disproportionate; it is consistent with the rent of
Rs. 500/- per month admitted by the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 herself in
her cross-examination dated 16.10.2025. Moreover, in Civil Suit No.
104/2010 in respect of the same suit property, son Defendant No. 2, had
himself stated the rent of the premises was Rs. 600/- per month.
102. The Ld. District judge has reasonably assessed the Mesne Profits, on
the basis of evidence and the admissions made on behalf of the Appellants.
The annual increase of 10% with effect from 01.01.2012 also cannot be said
to be arbitrary or excessive so as to warrant interference in appellate
jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
103. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned Judgment and
Decree dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi in CS No. 586/2016 is affirmed.
104. Accordingly, the present Regular First Appeal is dismissed.
105. Pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 27, 2026/VA/RS
RFA 437/2026 Page 26 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:27.07.2026
18:11:32
