KAMLESH KAUR Vs. R K GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of the present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.7.1999 whereby the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits was decreed against the appellant/defendant.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Sh. Ram Singh was the owner of the suit property being Flat No. C-216, DDA Flats, Saket, New Delhi. Sh. Ram Singh died on 20.1.1995 and whereafter this flat was transferred in the name of his widow Smt. Jagdip Kaur because all other legal heirs executed relinquishment deeds in favour of Smt. Jagdip Kaur. One such legal heir was Sh. Trilochan Singh, husband of the appellant. Smt. Jagdip Kaur, by means of the usual documents as prevalent in Delhi being the agreement to sell, power of attorney and affidavit etc., transferred the property for consideration in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. Since the appellant had no title in the property, she was claiming only as a licensee through her husband who was the co-owner, and because the appellant failed to vacate the property, the subject suit for possession and mesne profits was filed.

(3.) NO fault can be found with the aforesaid discussion and conclusions of the trial court because it is not necessary and as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there has to be a registered title document in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. By virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as then applicable, and Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 transfer of properties were taking place in Delhi by means of agreement to sell, power of attorney, will, affidavit etc., and which is now a recognized mode of transaction. The sum and substance of these documents is that the rights to enjoy the benefit of the property including possession is given to the person in whose favour these documents are executed. Accordingly, I do not agree with the counsel for the appellant that the suit was not maintainable because there was no registered title in favour of the owner of the property. The respondents had the necessary right and title so required to claim possession from the appellant.