Court dismisses appeal by Defendants challenging possession rights based on joint family ownership claims
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the exclusive ownership of a property located at Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi, in favor of the Plaintiffs, Bhavesh Madan and Reetu Madan, dismissing an appeal by the Defendants, Anju Chadha and Virender Chadha, who claimed joint family ownership. The court's decision was based on the uncontested registered sale deed dated November 20, 2009, which established the Plaintiffs as the sole legal owners of the property.
The case originated from a suit filed by the Plaintiffs seeking mandatory and permanent injunctions, along with damages, against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants, who had initially been allowed to stay in the property as a humane gesture during the COVID-19 lockdown, refused to vacate the premises despite repeated requests and threats were made by them. The Plaintiffs' ownership was backed by a registered sale deed, which was never challenged by the Defendants.
The Defendants, on the other hand, contested the suit claiming joint family ownership and relied on a purported family settlement. They argued that the property was purchased with joint family funds and should be part of the ancestral estate. However, their claims were barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as the property was registered in the Plaintiffs' name, and no evidence was presented to prove it was held for the family's benefit.
The High Court, presided by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, ruled that the Defendants failed to raise any valid triable issue or challenge the sale deed. The judgment emphasized that the exclusive ownership of the Plaintiffs was established through the sale deed, and the Defendants' claims related to family settlement and joint family ownership should be adjudicated in a separate partition suit, which is already pending. The court clarified that these claims could not impact the possession rights arising from the uncontested sale deed.
Referring to the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court concluded that there was clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal admission about the Plaintiffs' ownership in the written statement, justifying the decree of possession. The judgment reiterated that without any challenge to the registered sale deed, the Defendants' defense could not stand, and the Plaintiffs' possession rights were rightly granted.
The judgment has significant implications for property disputes involving claims of joint family ownership, emphasizing the importance of registered documents in establishing ownership rights. The decision upholds the principle that uncontested sale deeds are pivotal in determining possession rights, barring any valid legal challenge.
Bottom line:-
A decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed when there is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal admission about ownership of the property in favor of the plaintiff, and no triable issue is raised in the written statement.
Statutory provision(s): Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Ms. Anju Chadha v. Bhavesh Madan, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2879916
