Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has dismissed a set of appeals in a dispute between brothers over a residential property in Vishal Enclave, New Delhi, leaving intact a decree for possession and mesne profits. The Bench upheld directions requiring the occupant brother to hand over the first floor and two rooms with a bathroom on the second floor to the brother in whose name the perpetual lease and registered conveyance deed stand. It held that once a conveyance deed is duly executed and registered in one person’s name, it carries a strong presumption of title, and an alleged oral family settlement must be proved by reliable evidence; unsubstantiated assertions cannot override subsisting title documents.

The dispute arose between two brothers concerning ownership and possession of a residential property in Delhi. One brother claimed exclusive ownership of the property, asserting that it was purchased through a municipal auction in his name, constructed using his own funds, and later converted from leasehold to freehold solely at his expense. He contended that the other brother was permitted to occupy certain portions of the property purely as a licensee, without payment of consideration, and that such licence was revoked through a legal notice issued in October 2006.

Also Read: Shares Received On Amalgamation Are Taxable As Business Income Where Stock-In-Trade Shares Are Money-Realisable And Capable Of Definite Valuation: Supreme Court

The occupying brother denied permissive possession and claimed rights over the first and second floors on the basis of alleged joint family funds and oral family settlements said to have taken place in 1970 and 1979. He further asserted that the property was acquired benami, with the registered owner holding it in a fiduciary capacity for the family. A counter-claim was filed seeking declaration of ownership and injunction.

Evidence placed on record included lease deeds, conveyance deeds, municipal records, house tax documents, partnership deeds, bank passbooks, photographs, and testimony from multiple witnesses. Statutory issues included limitation, valuation, mesne profits, and the bar under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

The Court recorded that “the Plaintiff has conclusively proved his title, by placing on record the documents like Perpetual Lease Deed dated 11.05.1971, Conveyance Deed converting the property from leasehold into freehold, Occupancy Certificate, house tax records, assessment orders and statutory notices issued exclusively in his name.”

It observed that “the Defendants have not produced a single title document, conveyance, sanction letter, or statutory record evidencing any ownership rights in their favour, over any portion of the Suit Property.”

On the plea of joint family ownership, the Court stated that “mere oral assertions of ‘joint funds’, unsupported by contemporaneous documentary records, cannot displace registered title documents.” It further recorded that “the Partnership Deed relied upon by the Defendants itself establishes that the Plaintiff had an independent source of income even prior to the partnership.”

With respect to the alleged family settlements, the Court noted that “no written memorandum, contemporaneous document, or corroborative evidence was produced to prove the existence of an oral family settlement.” It added that “none of the witnesses examined were able to establish either the precise terms, the manner of implementation, or even the very existence of such alleged family settlements.”

Addressing the Benami plea, the Court recorded that “the defence taken by the Defendants is barred by Section 4 of the Benami Act,” and clarified that “mere incantation of the words ‘trustee’ or ‘fiduciary’ cannot, by itself, attract the statutory exception.”

On permissive possession, the Court observed that “such permissive possession, being referable to a licence, can never mature into adverse possession unless there is clear, cogent and unequivocal evidence of hostile possession.”

Also Read: Obtaining Diplomatic Passport For Live-In Partner, Children Not 'Grave Misconduct' If Consistently Disclosed To Department: Delhi High Court

The court stated that “In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or incorrect view arrived at or that an incorrect approach was adopted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, so as to justify appellate interference.”

“The Defendants have failed to establish any right, title or interest” in the suit property. The counter-claims were rightly dismissed,” and that “the decree of possession and mesne profits warrants no interference. The findings of the learned Single Judge are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and a correct application of law.  Having found no merit, all the present Appeals along with the pending applications, stands dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amrit Pal S. Gambhir and Mr. Dalip Mehra, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate.

Case Title: Sandeep Sethi & Anr v Rajinder Kumar Sethi (Deceased) Through LRs
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:152-DB
Case Numbers: RFA (OS) 05/2017, RFA (OS) 06/2017, RFA (OS) 10/2017
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar