The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed under Section 96 CPC against the judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-01, Saket, New Delhi, whereby a suit for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and damages was decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC directing the appellants to vacate the suit property. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in the judgment pronounced on 07th April, 2026 in RFA 70/2024, held that the plaintiffs/respondents are the exclusive owners of the property bearing No.136, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009 and the appellants, being the sister of plaintiff No.1 and her husband, were mere licensees whose permission to occupy the property stood terminated.
The suit was filed by Bhavesh Madan and Reetu Madan stating that they permitted the appellants, Ms. Anju Chadha and Mr. Virender Chadha, who had come from Australia in January 2020, to stay temporarily in the suit property to spend time with the mother. The stay got prolonged due to the Covid-19 lockdown. After the mother’s demise on 17.06.2020, the plaintiffs asked the appellants to vacate on 10.09.2020 but they refused. Even after handing over the mother’s jewellery on 29.09.2020 as per family understanding, the appellants did not vacate and instead started removing furniture, leading to a police complaint. The appellants claimed in their written statement that the suit property was purchased from joint family funds, formed part of joint family assets, and was subject to a family settlement under which it was agreed to be gifted to Anju Chadha. They asserted co-ownership and sought to contest the maintainability of the suit for injunction instead of partition.
The trial court allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC observing clear admissions regarding the registered Sale Deed standing in the name of the plaintiffs, to which Anju Chadha was an attesting witness, and which had never been challenged. The High Court, after perusing the pleadings and hearing arguments, affirmed that the Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009 unequivocally establishes the exclusive title of the respondents. The Court noted that the appellants never challenged the Sale Deed in the present suit and their defence of joint family funds and family settlement does not create any triable issue in this suit for possession. The Court observed that while there may be other family businesses and properties acquired from joint funds which are the subject matter of a separate partition suit CS(OS) 432/2021, the suit property in question stands distinctly in the name of the plaintiffs and cannot be treated as joint family property so as to defeat their right to possession.
The High Court clarified that claims based on alleged family settlement or contribution from joint family funds, even if maintainable, are to be adjudicated in the pending partition suit and do not entitle the appellants to continue in unauthorised occupation in the face of a registered title document. Mere long residence or payment of some charges during the lockdown does not confer any ownership or indefeasible right to stay once permission is terminated. The Court held that there was clear admission in the written statement about the Sale Deed and no defence worth triable issue was raised, justifying the decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Reliance placed by the appellants on various Supreme Court judgments regarding joint family nucleus and benami transactions was held inapplicable in the facts of the case, particularly in view of the unregistered nature of the alleged family settlement and the unchallenged registered Sale Deed.
The appeal was found to be without merit and was accordingly dismissed along with pending applications. The judgment reinforces that registered title deeds prevail over oral claims of joint family property or permissive occupation in suits for possession.
Case Details:
Title: Ms. Anju Chadha & Anr. Versus Bhavesh Madan & Anr.
Citation: 2026:DHC:12888
Case No.: RFA 70/2024 with CM APPL. 5115/2024
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date of Judgment: 07th April, 2026 (Reserved on 15th January, 2026)
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 