Title: ANUJ SHARMA vs AMIT SHARMA
Date of Decision: 10th July, 2023
+ C.R.P. 64/2022 & CM APPL. 20882/2022
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
Introduction
Delhi high Court Dismissed the revision petition seeking dismissal of trial court order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and held that plaint deserves not to be rejected as being barred by law and no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
Facts of the case
According to the relevant factual matrix, the plaintiff asserts ownership of a 55 square yard piece of property with the following address: No.4138/1, Ground floor, Gali No.108, B-Block, Near Kapoor Garments Store, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). The ground level of the suit property is allegedly in the hands of the defendant, who is the plaintiff’s biological brother. By way of Registered GPA, Agreement to Sell, and other related agreements dated 20.10.2004, Plaintiff acquired the suit property from its former owner. Water and electricity metres were also put in Plaintiff’s name.
According to the Plaintiff, he gave the Defendant permission to live on the suit property with his family as a licensee and permissive user upon the Defendant’s request, even though no licence fee was paid.
However, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to leave the land and provide physical ownership to him since he needed the property and the Defendant was bothering him and his family. Legal notice dated 09.10.2019 was delivered on the Defendant, ending the licence and requesting that he leave the suit property within 15 days after the Defendant failed to leave. When the defendant failed to transfer ownership of the property within the allotted period, the plaintiff brought the current lawsuit for mandatory and permanent injunction as well as damages.
Analysis of the court
The ruling of the Trial Court that dismissed the Defendant’s application under ruling VII Rule 11 CPC is being contested in the current revision petition. It is essential to carefully evaluate the criteria that limit the study and adjudication of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, before delving into the current situation. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others, Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 366.
In this instance, the justification provided in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC states that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit cannot be maintained since he has no legal possession or title to the suit property. by virtue of papers such as a GPA, an agreement to sell and buy, an affidavit, a will, a receipt, a letter of possession, etc. It is common knowledge that no right, title, or interest in immovable property may be transferred without accompanied by a Deed of Conveyance/Sale Deed that has been properly stamped and registered in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court ruled in Suraj Lamps (supra) that a power of attorney merely authorises transactions, not the transfer of any right, title, or interest in real estate the Attorney to carry out the tasks listed there. Furthermore, it was decided that the court would not treat transactions of the type of “GPA sales” or “SA/GPA/Will/Transfers” as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances because they do not convey title, do not constitute transfers, and cannot be recognised as legal methods of transferring real property. The Supreme Court stated that, with the exception of the restricted provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, these papers cannot be recognised as deeds of title.
The Trial Court took account of this conclusive Supreme Court ruling while determining the Defendant’s application in the current case. The application has been denied, though, on the basis of the ruling in O.P. Aggarwal (supra), in which the court ruled that while documents like an agreement to sell or a general purchase agreement do not grant ownership rights as held in Suraj Lamps (supra), they would nonetheless create certain rights in immovable property in favour of a person who has such documents executed in his favor—rights that do not necessarily grant ownership but instead give the person the right to claim possession of the suit property. The order of the Trial Court, in my opinion, is without error since it is consistent with the ruling of this Court where it is held that documents in the nature of GPA/Agreement to Sell, etc. may not transfer title but do create certain rights, such as possessory rights, which cannot be disturbed by a third party.
High Court bring up a recent Supreme Court ruling in Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 725, in this connection. In the aforementioned case, the Plaintiff/Respondent had filed a lawsuit, claiming that the Defendant/Appellant was the rightful owner of the property due to an Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, payment receipt, will, memo of possession, etc., and that he should be forced to leave the suit premises as well as pay damages. The Plaintiff was given possession of the suit premises, but upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff later permitted him to use the ground floor and one room on the first floor for three months as a licensee. Defendant did not leave the premises when it was time to do so.
Regarding the facts of the case, the Trial Court correctly observed that the plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that the suit property had been transferred to her by means of a Registered GPA, an Agreement to Sell and Purchase, etc. According to the ruling in Ghanshyam (supra), the plaintiff would therefore be presumptively entitled to possessory rights that must be safeguarded from the licensee. Therefore, the licensee must turn over possession at the conclusion of the licence period, and the fact that the Plaintiff establishes a title on papers like the GPA or the Agreement to Sell does not prevent the Plaintiff from suing the licensee for a mandatory or permanent injunction. Moreover, the Court was only obligated to review the averments in the plaint on a mere demurrer and the papers that were affixed thereto at the stage of resolving an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In addition to the averments listed above, the plaintiff has also presented supporting papers such GPAs, etc. Therefore, it cannot be declared at this time that the complaint ought to be dismissed as being banned by law and that there should be no interference.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta
