Puran Chand v. Sandeep Kumar and Another

IN T

Puran Chand (si

Sandeep Kumar

CORAM : HO

Present: Ms

Ms

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

plaintiff, Puran below. The trial the suit filed by The appeal prefe came to be dis therefrom, the p Brief Facts

2.

and legal posses He asserts that documents, incl THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

ince deceased) through LRs VERSUS r and Another

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND s. Ekta Thakur, Advocate and s. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate for t r. Sanjiv Gupta, Senior Advocate r. Aayush Bansal, Advocate for th -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appe Chand, assailing the concurre l Court, vide its judgment and d the plaintiff and allowed the cou ferred by the plaintiff before the l smissed vide judgment and dec present Regular Second Appeal h e case of the plaintiff, as pleaded ssion of house No. 222, Sector 4 he purchased the said single-s luding an affidavit, and has been

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2784-2019 (O&M) served on:- 29.10.2025 ate of Decision :04.11.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU the appellants. e assisted by the respondents. eal has been filed by the appella ent findings of the learned Cou decree dated 03.07.2015, dismis unter-claim filed by the defendan learned Lower Appellate Court a cree dated 09.05.2019. Aggriev has been preferred. d in the plaint, is that he is in law 44-A, Chandigarh, since June 19 storey house through indirect s n in continuous peaceful possess

- ant– urts ssed nts. also ved wful

¶997sale

ever since. The said house from his daughter, Sm that the plaintiff No.1, Sandeep K matters pertaini Housing Board. intended to con brother-in-law o background alle to vacate the pr made several re peaceful posses acting in conniv dated 21.03.200 alleged that def and pressuring plaintiff to insti the defendants, t possession of th continuous, and defendants have in question wa property, being purchased by hi plaintiff avers that he constructe m his hard-earned money and wit mt. Anu Bala, who is now marri f executed a Sub-General Power Kumar, his son, only for a limit ing to electricity, water, the E . The plaintiff contends that the nfer ownership rights upon the of defendant No.1, namely Anu egedly involved in a bank dacoity remises and hand over its posse equests to the defendants and An ssion, but to no avail. Accordin vance with police officials, lodg 09, with an intent to disposses fendant No.1 and his associates the plaintiff to vacate the prem itute the present suit for perman their agents, and family member he house. The plaintiff further d peaceful possession of the e no right, title, or interest in the as purchased from the sale pr House No. 1099, Sector 11, P im after selling a 10-marla hous

ed the first and second floors of th the assistance of a loan taken ied and settled. It is further plea r of Attorney in favour of defend ted purpose of dealing with offi Estate Office, and the Chandig said Power of Attorney was ne e defendant. It is alleged that urag Sandal, a person of crimi y, has been threatening the plain ession. The plaintiff claims to h nurag Sandal not to interfere in ng to the plaintiff, the defenda ged a false and frivolous compla ss the plaintiff illegally. It is a have been continuously harass mises. The said acts compelled nent injunction, seeking to restr rs from interfering with his peace pleaded that he has been in op house since 1997 and that e same. He maintains that the ho roceeds of his previously own Panchkula, which in turn had b e allotted to him at Phase 4, S.A

- f the n by ded dant cial garh ever inal ntiff have his ants, aint also sing rain eful pen, ouse ned een

Nagar, Mohali. disputed propert single penny tow

3.

Up statement-cum-c defendants subm practising advo verified false pl of defendant No the property in from the previo Om Prakash Sh Attorney dated 2 thereof, the de Office, Chandig is further pleade furnished the h including dinin machine, and ot that the plaintif defendant No.1, licencee, withou that the plaintiff misappropriatin receipts in his o Thus, according to the plaintif ty was paid by him, and the defe wards its purchase or constructio on notice, the defendants a counter claim, controverting th mitted that the suit is not mai ocate, has deliberately suppress leadings with intent to mislead th o.1, Sandeep Kumar, that he is question, having purchased th ous owner through a General Po harma, the original owner. It i

22.04.1997 was duly registered fendant got the property conv garh Administration, after paying ed that after purchasing the prop house with expensive furniture ng tables, steel almirahs, doub ther household effects, all purch ff and his wife, Smt. Rattan Ra , were allowed to reside on the g ut payment of any licence fee, ou f later started acting contrary to g rent from tenants on the up own name by falsely claiming ow

ff, the entire consideration for endants have not contributed eve on. appeared and filed their writ he averments of the plaintiff. T intainable and that the plaintiff sed material facts and signed he Court. It is the categorical sta the exclusive and lawful owner he same for valuable considerat ower of Attorney executed by S is averred that the said Power on 27.05.1997, and on the stren verted into freehold by the Est g all requisite conversion charges perty, defendant No.1 renovated e, fixtures, and household artic le beds, gas connection, wash hased by him. The defendants as ani, being the biological parents ground floor of the house merely ut of love and affection. It is alleg the interest of the defendant, be pper floors, and even issued r wnership. The defendants state t

- en a tten ff, a r of tion Shri r of ngth tate s. It cles hing sert s of y as ged gan rent

license was term until 15.04.2009 plaintiff neither

4.

It i Ravi kant, Smt. false documents preparing forge the plaintiff and Smt. Poonam S also averred th Gurvinder Kaur by falsely repre real ownership, further alleged house by exploit

5.

By possession by w claiming under No. 222, Sector defendants also till actual restor fetch rent excee

6.

the counter-clai the defendants. minated vide notice dated 30.0 9 to vacate the premises. Desp vacated the premises nor paid an s also averred that the plaintiff, Vijay Kumari, Anu Bala, and he s and aided strangers in using t d documents. Defendant No.1 f d his associates created a situation Sandal, wife of defendant No.1, hat the plaintiff executed false r Sodhi on 18.08.2009, receiving senting himself as the landlord. disputes arose, and the matter that the plaintiff has been reta ting his position as an advocate a way of counter-claim, the way of mandatory injunction, dir him to hand over vacant posses r 44-A, Chandigarh, and to remo claimed damages at the rate of ₹ ration of possession, asserting th ding ₹40,000 per month. e plaintiff filed a replication to t im, reiterating his ownership an He refuted the assertion that d

3.2009, granting the plaintiff ti pite receipt of the said notice, ny damages. in collusion with others, includ er husband Sushil Gupta, fabrica the disputed property's address further alleged that on 21.03.20 n of lawlessness and even assaul and their children. The defend e rent documents with one S g substantial consideration from When the said lady discovered r was reported to the police. I aining unlawful possession of and a senior citizen. defendants sought a decree recting the plaintiff and all pers ssion of the ground floor of Ho ove all unauthorized occupants. T ₹40,000 per month from 15.04.20 hat similar properties in the vicin the written statement and a reply nd denying all allegations made defendant No.1 had purchased

- ime ding ated for 009, lted dant Smt. her It is for ons ouse nity y to

house for valuab a holder of a S administrative p Estate Office, C allotted to Shri Attorney for ma Tarsem Sabharw of Attorney in f favour of Shri G favour of Gurd submitted that O of his agents an what was veste Singh Dhillon thereafter sold t documents, and relevant papers. was the original of Attorney in f dealings with g further agreed t revoke the sam convenience.

7.

government acc ble consideration, contending ins Sub-General Power of Attorney purposes. The plaintiff elaborat Chandigarh, plot No. 222, Secto i Om Prakash Sharma, who h anagement purposes in favour of wal. Thereafter, Ashwani Sabhar favour of Shri K.C. Arora, and Gurdial Singh Dhillon on 29.02 dial Singh Dhillon was cancel Om Prakash Sharma had never co nd that the Sub-GPA holders co d in the principal. It is the cas had constructed a three-storey the same to the plaintiff by way d handed over actual vacant p . On the directions of the plaint l GPA holder of Om Prakash Sh favour of defendant No.1, Sande overnment authorities and not t that neither Ashwani Sabharwal me, and the said arrangement w e plaintiff emphasized that d commodation, namely House No

stead that the defendant was mer y issued in his favour for limi ted that as per the records of or 44-A, Chandigarh, was initia had executed a General Power f Shri Ashwani Sabharwal and S rwal executed a Sub-General Pow subsequently another Sub-GPA

2.1996. However, the Sub-GPA lled on 27.05.1997. The plain onferred ownership rights upon ould not convey ownership beyo e of the plaintiff that Shri Gurd y building over the said plot y of an affidavit and other indir physical possession along with tiff, Shri Ashwani Sabharwal, w harma, issued a Sub-General Pow ep Kumar, only to facilitate rout to transfer ownership rights. It w l nor Gurdial Singh Dhillon wo was made only for administrat defendant No.1 was residing o. 3091, Sector 15-D, Chandiga

- rely ited ally r of Shri wer A in A in ntiff any ond dial rect all who wer tine was ould tive in arh,

since 1994, and property in 1997 him from his ow at Mohali and P and fabrication possession of th counter-claim fi injunction, as so

8.

Fro framed the follo

¶1pra

2.

3.

¶4for

¶5han

6.

9.

Du plaintiff's evide 11 CPC, the pl which was acco already filed a d therefore could not have be

¶7The plaintiff maintained that a wn resources and from the sale p Panchkula. He denied all allega and asserted that he has been i he disputed house since 1997. I iled by the defendants be dismis ought in the suit, be granted in fa om the pleadings of the parties owing issues for determination: Whether the plaintiff is ent ayed for? — OPP Whether the suit of the plaint Whether the defendant is ent counter-claim? — OPD Whether the suit of the plai the purpose of Court fee? — OP Whether defendant No.1 has nds? — OPP 6 Relief. uring the pendency of the case, ence and for consideration of an laintiff, through a separate stat ordingly dismissed as withdrawn counter-claim, an application f

een the purchaser of the dispu all sale considerations were paid proceeds of his previous proper ations of misappropriation, forge in continuous, peaceful, and law It was accordingly prayed that ssed, and the decree for perman avour of the plaintiff. s, the learned Trial Court initia titled to the relief of injunction tiff is not maintainable? — OPD titled for the damages as claimed intiff has not been properly valu PD s not come to the Court with cl when the matter was fixed for n application under Order VII R tement, withdrew the present s . However, since the defendant h for recasting of issues was mov

- uted d by rties ery, wful nent ally n as D 3 d in ued ean Rule suit, had ved,

which was allow earlier on 25.08

25.04.2013 and

¶1of t wit cou

2.

3.

10.

In o into the witness Ex. PW-1/A, wh ownership and p contents of the plaintiff proved

i) title dra

ii) con

iii)

evidence his d version. Thereaf wed by the learned Trial Court

¶82010 were recalled, and the f again on 03.07.2015: Whether the plaintiff is liable the ground floor of House No. 22 th other persons brought by him unter-claim? — OPD Whether the suit of the plaint Relief. order to prove his case, the plain s box as PW-1 and tendered into herein he reiterated the contents possession over the suit property affidavit are not reproduced h on record the following docume Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-7, inclu e/affidavit of purchase, copy o aft, and other related papers; Ex. P-8 to Ex. P-214, comp nstruction and renovation; and Affidavits Ex. P-223 and Ex d ownership claim. e plaintiff also examined PW-2 duly sworn affidavit Ex. PW-fter, the learned counsel for the p

t. Consequently, the issues fram following issues were reframed e to handover the vacant possess 22, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh, alo m, and also damages as set up in tiff is not maintainable? — OPD ntiff, Puran Chand, himself stepp o evidence his duly sworn affida s of the plaint and substantiated y. For the sake of brevity, the en herein. In support of his case, ents: uding the affidavit, documents of the passbook, copy of dem prising bills and receipts relating x. P-224, establishing his possess , Sanjay Gupta, who tendered i 2/A, corroborating the plainti plaintiff closed the evidence.

- med d on sion ong D ped avit his ntire of g to sion into iff's

11.

On No.1 / counter-c tendered into reaffirmed the e conciseness, the In support of h following docum Power of Attor documents, pay examined the fo

i)

ii)

iii)

iv)

v)

vi)

vii)

Findings of the

12.

Aft counter-claiman GPA holder. It either in favour of the record, i parties regarding n the other hand, to prove the de claimant Sandeep Kumar entered evidence his duly sworn affi entire case set up in the written e detailed contents of the affidav his case, the defendant produce ments: Ex. DW-x/1 to Ex. DW rney, Sub-General Power of A yment receipts, and other suppor ollowing witnesses: DW-2 Smt. Balwinder Kaur, DW-3 Satish Kumar, DW-4 Sanjay Vats, DW-5 Neeraj Kumar, DW-6 Satish Kumar, DW-7 Harjinder Singh, and ) DW-8 Sanjeev Kumar. ereafter, the learned counsel for e trial Court ter hearing both sides, the lear nt's claim was two-fold—firstly a was, however, admitted that th of the plaintiff or in favour of t it was noticed that multiple liti g the same property. The Court

fence and counter-claim, defend d into the witness box as DW-1 a fidavit Ex. DW-1/A, wherein n statement and counter-claim. vit have not been reproduced here ed and tendered into evidence W-x/14, which included the Gene Attorney, conversion and freeh rting papers. The defendant furt , the defendant closed the evidenc rned trial Court observed that as an owner and secondly as a S here existed no registered sale d the counter-claimant. Upon peru gations were pending between noted that the main injunction

- dant he For ein. eral hold ther ce. Sub-deed usal

had already bee regarding the ow counter-claiman General Power Ashwani Sabha

27.08.1997 issu Sub-GPA (Ex occupation/com recover rent, an this, it was con manage and reco did not vest own

13.

Property Act, a registered sale d

14.

any valid docum affidavits (Ex.P alleged constru remained unprov Gupta) revealed payments havin defendant's ple evidentiary supp and criminal pro en withdrawn, and therefore, no wnership of the defendant in the nt had produced various docume of Attorney in his favour, E arwal dated 21.03.1959, and ued by the Chandigarh Adminis x.DX-36) authorized Sand mpletion certificates, to let out the nd to initiate legal proceedings t ncluded that the Sub-GPA conf over possession of the premises nership rights in him. e Court further observed that un a sale of immovable property deed, and a power of attorney doe e trial Court also noticed that th ment proving ownership, havin P-178 and Ex.P-178/A) whose uction claimed to have been c ved. The cross-examination of th d that no document bore his nam ng been made in the name of ea of ownership and constru port. The Court further observed oceedings pending between the p

o finding was required to be giv e counter-claim. It was held that ents including Ex.DX-36, the S Ex.DX-33, the GPA in favour Ex.DX-37, copy of order da stration. The Court found that deep Kumar to apply e property, to enter into lease dee to evict tenants or occupants. Fr ferred upon him sufficient right on behalf of the principal, thoug nder Section 54 of the Transfer y can only be effected through es not by itself transfer ownershi he defendant had failed to prod g relied merely on photocopies originals were not produced. T carried out by the defendant a he plaintiff's witness (PW-2 San me, nor was there any reference the defendant. Consequently, uction was found to be with d that there were multiple litigati parties, and the affidavit relied up

- ven Sub-r of ated for eds, rom t to gh it r of h a ip. duce s of also njay e to hout ons

by the defendan registered regard

15.

In holding a valid continued even had served a v entitled to recov found that there ₹40,000 per mo for similar acco

15.04.2009 till t

16.

On that the counter counter-claim, a specifically emp eviction. Accord

17.

In defendant Sande floor of House N along with dam restoration of po Findings of the

18.

evidence, and fi had challenged nt for asserting ownership was i ding its genuineness. contrast, the counter-claimant Sub-GPA and that the plaintiff after termination of his license. alid notice terminating the plai ver possession of the ground floo was no evidence on record to su onth, and based on the evidence ommodation, it assessed the dam the date of delivery of possession n Issue No.2, relating to the mai r-claimant, being a Sub-GPA ho as the authority conferred upon powered him to let out, recover dingly, it was held that the count conclusion, the trial Court decr eep Kumar, holding that he was No. 222, Sector 44-A, Chandiga mages at the rate of ₹25,000 per ossession, with costs. e Lower Appellate Court e learned first Appellate Court, indings of the trial Court, observ the decree of the trial Court

itself under suspicion, with an F successfully proved that he w f's occupation of the premises h . The Court held that the defend intiff's license and was, therefo or of the house. However, the Co ubstantiate the claim for damage regarding the prevalent rate of r mages at ₹25,000 per month fr n. intainability of the suit, it was h older, had the right to institute n him under clause 6 of Ex.DX r rent, and initiate legal action ter-claim was maintainable. reed the counter-claim filed by entitled to possession of the grou arh, from the plaintiff Puran Cha month from 15.04.2009 till act after re-appreciating the pleadin ved that the appellant Puran Ch primarily on the grounds that

- FIR was had dant ore, ourt es at rent rom held X-36 for und and, tual ngs,

counter-claim fi had been filed b holder. It was al GPA, Ex.DX-36 as the said docu appellant furthe Singh Dhillon in same after full Dhillon, which, that the trial C construction on no.1's claim of asserted that he the suit house therefore, argue the Sub-Power o

19.

for injunction, counter-claim u Appellate Cour continued to con valid Court-fee like Ex.P-178 a accordance with that these docum iled by respondent no.1 Sandeep by him in his individual capacity lso contended that the trial Court 6, to decree the counterclaim an ument did not confer ownership r argued that he had purchased n 1997 for valuable consideratio payment. He relied upon affi , according to him, established Court failed to consider the f n the first and second floors of f license was inconsistent and had been in possession since 19 well before the alleged creatio ed that the trial Court wrongly d of Attorney, ignoring the appella e learned Appellate Court noted which he later withdrew, and under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC, rt recorded that the appellant ntest the counterclaim and that payment. It further noted that and P-178/A, which were only h law, and that the originals were ments could not confer any title

p Kumar was not maintainable a y and not as a sub-power of attorn t had erred in relying upon the S nd that such reliance was mispla p rights upon Sandeep Kumar. T the house in question from Gurd on and had taken possession of davits executed by Gurdial Sin his ownership. It was also argu fact that the appellant had rai f the property and that respond d self-contradictory. The appell 996 and had shifted his residence on of any license in 2009. It w decreed the counterclaim based ant's ownership and possession. d that the appellant had filed a that the respondent had set up , which was duly contested. T had withdrawn his main suit the counterclaim was supported the appellant relied on docume y photocopies and not proved e not produced. The Court observ e, particularly in view of the sett

- as it ney Sub-aced dial ngh ued ised dent lant e to was, d on suit p a but d by ents d in ved

law that owners registered conve the property thro registered docum

20.

valid and subsis certain powers i However, the sa clause 6 of the recover possessi making his coun

21.

It w could not be de prove his owner He was neither any legal right ownership base On the other ha Sub-GPA holde

22.

Con the appeal and u on Sub-GPA w further affirmed counterclaim an In view of the ship of immovable property can eyance deed. The contention of t ough indirect sale was rejected a ment. e Appellate Court also found th sting document executed in favo including to let out, recover ren aid document did not confer ow Sub-GPA, Sandeep Kumar wa ion and to deal with the property nterclaim maintainable. was further held that although eclared the owner of the proper rship or the capacity in which he a tenant nor an owner, and his p t. The Appellate Court conclu d on unproved affidavits and p and, the respondent's right to m r was duly established. nsequently, the learned Addition upheld the findings of the trial was maintainable though it did n d that the respondent had the nd to seek possession of the hou overall appreciation of evidence

n only be transferred by way o the appellant that he had purcha as the same was not supported b hat the Sub-GPA Ex.DX-36 wa our of Sandeep Kumar, giving h nt, and take legal steps for evicti wnership. Nonetheless, by virtue as authorized to take legal steps y on behalf of the principal, ther h the respondent/counter-claim rty, the appellant too had failed e continued to occupy the premis possession was found to be with uded that the appellant's plea hotocopies could not be sustain manage and recover possession a nal District Judge found no meri Court that the counter-claim ba not confer ownership rights. It w authority to file and maintain use under clause 6 of the Sub-GP e and legal position, the Appel

- of a ased by a as a him ion. e of s to eby mant d to ses. hout of ned. as a it in ased was PA.

Court held that of the trial Cou the decree in fav

23.

Ag Chand plaintiff here that during his legal represe

24.

Up Submissions of

25.

representatives Courts below as argued that both the counterclaim Ex. D/36, despi rights. It was su owner of the sui that a power of a any title. The co question of pos without properly the premises. Th had claimed ow regard had alre pending adjudic there was no ground to interfer urt and accordingly dismissed th vour of respondent Sandeep Kum grieved by the concurrent find filed the present regular second the pendency of the present app entatives maintained the present on notice, respondents appeared f learned counsel for the appell e learned counsel for the a of deceased Puran Chand, assa s being perverse and contrary to h the Trial Court and the Lower m of the respondent on the basis ite holding that the said docum ubmitted that the respondent/cou it property as there exists no reg attorney, whether general or sub ounsel contended that the Courts session and ownership was wro y determining the capacity in w he appellant, being in long-stand wnership based on purchase from eady filed a separate suit for d cation before the Civil Judge (Jun

re with the well-reasoned judgm he appeal on 09.05.2019, affirm mar. dings of the Courts below, Pu d appeal. It is pertinent to ment peal plaintiff -Puran Chand died appeal. d and contested the appeal. lant appellant, representing the le ailed the concurrent findings of law and evidence on record. It w Appellate Court erred in decree of Sub-General Power of Attorn ment did not confer any owners unter claimant is admittedly not gistered sale deed in his favour, b-general, does not create or trans s below failed to appreciate that ongly decided against the appell which the appellant was occupy ding possession of the suit prope m Gurdial Singh Dhillon, and in t declaration of ownership, which nior Division), Chandigarh.

- ment ming uran tion egal was eing ney ship sfer lant ying erty, that

26.

It w rested upon th respondent had the alleged sub-the trial Court of the ground fl persons brough burden squarel ownership and suit for specific execution of a dismissed by th copy of the said Thus, it was su stood dismissed alleged authority

27.

misconstrued th Attorney Ex. D/ an agent derive powers delegate preceding chain favour of Ashw of Attorney) exe Ex. DX/35 exec was further argued that the onus he respondent/counter claimant come forward asserting the righ -GPA. The counsel pointed out t "Whether the plaintiff is liable t loor of House No. 222, Sector 4 ht by him, and also damages as ly lay upon the respondent/c entitlement. However, the respo performance against the origina a registered sale deed in his he learned Civil Judge (Junior D d judgment was produced on rec ubmitted that once the responde d and no title had passed to him, h y could not have been decreed. e learned counsel further co he scope of the powers conferre /36. It was emphasized that unde es his authority strictly from th ed to him. The Sub-General Pow n of documents, namely, Ex. D wani Sabharwal and Tarsem Sabh ecuted by Om Parkash in favour cuted and cancelled between Ash

to prove ownership of the prope t and not the appellant, as ht to possession and damages un that even as per the issue framed to hand over the vacant possess 44-A, Chandigarh, along with ot s set up in the counterclaim?", counter-claimant to establish ondent himself had filed a separ al owner, Shri Om Parkash, seek favour, which was subsequen Division), Chandigarh. The certif cord by way of additional eviden ent's suit for specific performa his counterclaim based on the sa ontended that the Courts bel ed under the Sub-General Power er the Power of Attorney Act, 18 he principal and cannot exceed wer of Attorney, when read with D/33 executed by Om Parkash harwal, Ex. DW/32 (Special Pow of B.K. Sabharwal, Ex. DX/34 hwani Sabharwal and Gurdial Sin

- erty nder d by sion ther his rate king ntly fied nce. ance ame low r of 882, h in wer

Dhillon, and fi respondent Sand sale or confer occupation/com lease agreement no power confer any ownership r of the sub-GPA law.

28.

It w inducted the app authority. In fac purchase from G including his ag property. It was licensor, and sin a licensee is unt application form name of Puran C Chandigarh, is r ownership stood

29.

crucial documen who was expres and the building nally Ex. DX/36 executed by deep Kumar, makes it clear that r title. The said authority mpletion certificates, letting out ts, recovering rent, and issuing r rred to induct a person into the p rights. The lower appellate Cour A beyond its terms, which was im was submitted that the responde pellant into the property as a lic ct, the appellant's possession wa Gurdial Singh Dhillon, and till d ged and handicapped wife, conti s argued that in law, only the nce the respondent is not the own tenable. The counsel further refer m for conversion of the leaseho Chand son of Sadhu Ram, reside recorded as the purchaser, establ d reflected in his favour. e learned counsel contended that nt Ex. DX/32, which had been ssly authorized to sell and trans g to be constructed thereon. It

Ashwani Sabharwal in favour the Sub-GPA did not authorize was limited only to obtain the premises, entering into rent receipts or legal notices. There w property as a licensee or to trans rt, however, extended the langu mpermissible and contrary to sett ent had failed to prove how he h censee when he possessed no su as lawful as owner in pursuance date, the legal heirs of the appella inue to be in possession of the owner of a property can act a ner, his claim that the appellant w rred to document Ex. P-1, being old site into freehold, wherein ent of House No. 222, Sector 44 lishing that even in official recor t both Courts below overlooked duly executed by B.K. Sabharw sfer the lease rights of the prope was, therefore, submitted that

- r of any ning t or was sfer uage tled had uch e of ant, suit as a was 4-A, rds, wal,

concurrent findi based on misrea misinterpretation both substantial or maintain a c confer powers favour of the ap

30.

In relied upon Sura 2011 (4) RCR ( attorney does no transfer of title these submissio Courts below b with costs. Submissions of

31.

the concurrent f decrees passed appreciation of respondent Sand the original ow subsisting chain in favour of Ash and cancellation ings of the Courts below were ading and non-appreciation of th n of the powers conferred unde l questions of law, whether the counterclaim in absence of title beyond those delegated by the pellant. support of his arguments, the aj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd (Civil) 669, to emphasize that a ot convey ownership or confer ti can only be effected through ons, the counsel prayed that th be set aside and the counterclai f learned counsel for the respon e learned counsel for the respo findings of the Courts below and in favour of the respondent wer f evidence and documents on r deep Kumar, being the Sub-Ge wner Om Parkash, derived hi n of documents, particularly Ex. hwani Sabharwal), Ex. DX/34 a n), and Ex. DX/36 (Sub-Gener

legally unsustainable as they w he evidence on record, as well as er the sub-GPA. It was urged t respondent could claim possess e and whether the sub-GPA co e original owner, be answered learned counsel for the appell d. v. State of Haryana and anot power of attorney or sub-power itle in immovable property, and t a registered conveyance deed. he judgments and decrees of b im of the respondent be dismis ndents ondent–counter claimant suppor d submitted that the judgments re well-reasoned and based on d record. It was contended that neral Power of Attorney holder is authority through a valid DX/33 (General Power of Attorn and Ex. DX/35 (subsequent trans ral Power of Attorney executed

- were s on that sion ould d in lant ther r of that On both ssed rted due r of ney sfer

favour of respo authority to ma necessary legal possession of th revoked or ca respondent, ther

32.

It w floor of the prop had no ownersh was bound to va rightly filed the Rs.25,000/- per Trial Court and evidence, decre partly received Rs.49.50 lakhs, balance of Rs.43

33.

the Sub-GPA d institute procee occupying the flowed directly to let out the pr through legal p ownership was ondent). It was urged that the anage, let out, and recover rent l steps including institution o he premises. It was submitted tha ancelled, and therefore, remai reby giving him locus standi to m was further argued that the app perty as a mere licensee under t hip or tenancy rights therein. H acate the premises once the licen e counter claim seeking possessi r month w.e.f. 15.04.2009 till a d the Appellate Court, after ap eed the counter claim, and the through Court, with the total am out of which Rs.5.58 lakhs ha

3.92 lakhs as payable to the decr e counsel contended that both C did not create ownership, it vali edings for possession and ev premises. The respondent's rig from clause 6 of Ex. DX/36, wh remises, issue rent receipts, reco process, and replace them with without basis as he had fail

Sub-GPA was executed with from the property, and to take of proceedings for eviction at the said document had never b ined operative in favour of maintain the counter claim. pellant was occupying the grou the authority of the respondent His possession being permissive, nse was terminated. The respond ion and mesne profits at the rate actual delivery of possession. T ppreciating oral and document mesne profits were computed mount due up to 14.10.2025 be ad already been received, leavin ree-holder. Courts had rightly held that thou idly empowered the respondent viction of any person unlawfu ght to maintain the counter cla hich authorized the Sub-GPA hol over rent, eject tenants or occupa h others. The appellant's claim led to produce any sale deed

- full e all een und , he dent e of tary eing ng a ugh t to ully aim lder ants m of

registered docum was not proved. injunction had b claim.

34.

(2017(2) RCR ( contend that the non-transferable licensor. It was during the pend could not be inh Ranjithammal, right and does n

35.

It w the counter clai termination of li unsubstantiated, appellant's cont entitling the resp prayed for dism Findings of this

36.

I h the appellant an Appellate Court ment of title, and his alleged pu It was also highlighted that the been withdrawn, and therefore, e counsel relied upon the judgm (Civil) 80 and Sunder Lal v. Sita e relationship between a licensor e, and that the right of a licen s argued that since Puran Chan dency of the appeal, the license a herited by his legal heirs. Relian AIR 1931 Madras 216, reiterati not create any interest in the prop was therefore submitted that the im of the respondent on the ba icense. The claim of ownership s , and stood contradicted by his tinued possession was unauthoriz pondent to both possession and issal of the appeal. s Court have considered the submissions nd for the respondent, the recor t, the evidence on record and the

urchase from Gurdial Singh Dhil appellant's own suit for perman he could not challenge the coun ments in Hari Dass v. Sagar Cha a Bali (2003(3) RCR (Civil) 243 and licensee is purely personal nsee ceases upon the death of nd, the original appellant, had d automatically stood terminated nce was also placed on Chinnan ing that a license is only a perso perty. e lower Courts had rightly decr asis of the valid Sub-GPA and set up by the appellant was illuso own documents and conduct. T zed after termination of the licen mesne profits. The learned coun s advanced by learned counsel rd of the trial Court and the Low documents exhibited therein.

- llon nent nter 3, to died n v. onal reed ory, nse, nsel for

37.

below erred in g Power of Attor convey title and damages consid power, cannot it as to vest absol effected by a r narrower questi examined, nam specific powers authority to ma proceedings for Court and the A while it did no holder to initiat record before th abstract principl rule that a perso of those specifi profits on behal respects both th principle that an of the principal mesne profits an e contention of learned counse giving relief to the counter-claim rney (Ex.DX-36) because, he s d therefore the counter-claimant dered. It is settled law that a pow tself operate as a registered con lute title in the attorney. The registered deed. That principle ion which the counter-claim ra mely, whether on the basis of s contained in Ex.DX-36 the anage the property, to let it o r eviction of persons wrongfully Appellate Court carefully read cl t purport to create title, it did te legal proceedings for recove his Court, the Courts below w le that a power of attorney does on clothed with authority under ic powers, maintain proceedings f of the principal. This Court co he settled principle regarding tr n agent may enforce the specific l. The relief granted in the cou nd not for declaration of title in t

l for the appellant that the Cou mant on the basis of a Sub-Gene says, a Power of Attorney can had no locus to seek possession wer of attorney, be it general or s nveyance of immovable property transfer of immovable property e does not, however, answer aised and which the Courts bel the chain of instruments and e counter-claimant had suffici out, recover rents, and to instit y occupying the premises. The t ause 6 of Ex.DX-36 and found t expressly empower the Sub-G ery of possession and rent. On were justified in distinguishing s not confer title from the narrow a valid power may, in the exerc s to recover possession and me ncurs with that approach becaus ransfer of title and the agency powers delegated to him on beh unter-claim was for possession the Sub-GPA holder's favour.

- urts eral nnot n or sub-y so y is low ient tute trial that GPA wer cise esne se it law

38.

GPA relied upo because the cha inconsistent tra produced.

39.

It i validity of ante examined Ex.D reached concurr subsisting and counter-claim. rendered Ex.DX GPA does not ip GPA-holding au itself revoked. T upon the appell this Court finds to show that Ex capacity. The m ultimate title bet of a power of at proceedings and Sub-GPA had, f

40.

had paid the fu e appellant further argued that e on by the respondent was vitia ain of title and the antecedent i ansactions, and because mater s true that the existence of an u ecedent instruments are fact-sen DX-33, Ex.DX-34, Ex.DX-35 rent findings that the Sub-GPA had not been effectively revok The argument that cancellatio X-36 a nullity is answered by th pso facto annul Sub-GPA execu uthority unless there is specific The burden to prove revocation lant who asserted the contrary. s that the appellant failed to lead x.DX-36 had been rescinded or mere pendency of other suits and tween different parties does not, ttorney which on its face empow d to recover rents. The Courts b for the purposes of the counter-cl e contention of learned counsel ull consideration and had beco

even on the agency point the S ated and could not be acted up instruments show cancellation a rial original documents were unbroken chain of authority and nsitive inquiries, the Courts bel and the attendant evidence A in favour of Sandeep Kumar w ked prior to his institution of n of some antecedent Sub-GP he fact that cancellation of a S uted subsequently by the compet proof that the later instrument w n or invalidity of Ex.DX-36 res On a careful reading of the rec d positive and convincing evide that the person executing it lack the existence of litigation about , without more, destroy the effic wers the attorney to institute evict elow therefore rightly held that laim, sufficient operative effect. for the appellant that the appell ome owner by purchase from o

- Sub-pon not low was PAs Sub-tent was sted cord nce ked cacy tion lant

Gurdial Singh D floors at his own be treated as pe and indirect sale into significant Transfer of Pro registered instru documents and emphasis on th example Ex. P-affidavit and ind transfer immova suit for permane or did not wish stage. He contin is a relevant cir his clear and leg conclusion that Court's re-appre by perversity.

41.

It w wrongly placed proving owner-appellate judgm rule on burden. Dhillon in 1997 and that he ha n cost, therefore his possession w ermissive is devoid of any force e documents to support his own evidentiary difficulties on this operty Act a sale of immovabl ument, the mere existence of a photocopies is insufficient to cr he failure of the appellant to pr -178 and Ex.P-178/A and on t direct documents were not execu able property. In addition, the ap ent injunction during the trial, wh h to press an independent, affir nued only to contest the counter-rcumstance because it shows tha gal right over the suit property. T the appellant's evidence fell sh eciation of the documentary evid was further argued on behalf of d the burden of proof upon him ship or the right to possession. ments shows that the Courts belo When a party asserts a right t

ad constructed the first and seco was that of an owner and could e. The appellant relies on affidav nership claim. That contention r s record. Under Section 54 of le property must be effected b affidavits, unregistered or indir reate title. The Courts below pla roduce the original documents the fact that the alleged vendo uted in the form required by law ppellant himself withdrew his m hich demonstrates that he could rmative claim to ownership at t -claim. Withdrawal of the main at the appellant had not establish This Court finds no legal error in hort of proving title. The appel dence is sustainable and not vitia the appellant that the lower Cou m and relieved the respondent A careful reading of the trial ow correctly stated and applied to possession based on a power

- ond not vits runs y a rect aced for or's w to main not that suit hed late ated urts t of

attorney he mu possession, onc show that he wa the appellant to possession was title documents evidence of pay burden. In other each party to p respondent prov failed to prove a

42.

profits and the evidence suppo profits from 15 not proved the claim and that e Assessment of examined evide applied principl There is no math by the contempo precise or reliab computation fro ust establish the particular auth e the respondent produced Ex.D as empowered to recover possess show that the Sub-GPA was n supported by valid title. The app s, his withdrawal of the main yment and registered conveyanc r words, the Courts below did n prove the facts that buttressed ved a subsisting Sub-GPA with a registered transfer of title. e appellant's counsel fiercely assessment of damages at ₹25,0 rted that figure and that the tri .04.2009. The trial Court expre extravagant figure of ₹40,000 p evidence on record supported a l mesne profits is a fact-inten ence of market rent for similar a led exercise of judicial discretio hematical or legal perversity in t oraneous evidence on rent in the ble rent-agreement establishing t om 15.04.2009, the date specified

hority which enables him to cla DX-36 and relied upon clause 6 sion and rents, the burden shifted not operative or that the appellan pellant's failure to produce origi suit and the absence of concr ce meant that he did not meet t not invert the burden, they requi d his asserted legal position. T eviction powers and the appell attacked the quantum of me 000 per month, contending that ial Court erred in awarding me ssly found that the defendants h per month claimed in the coun lower but reasonably assessed su nsive exercise, the Courts bel accommodation in the vicinity on to arrive at ₹25,000 per mon that approach, the award is justif e locality and by the absence of the higher figure. The trial Cou d in the termination notice given

- aim 6 to d to nt's inal rete that ired lant esne t no esne had nter-um. low nth. fied any urt's

the appellant, termination of p

43.

parties was that a licence existed on the death of and permissive terminates with intention that th recorded that the the owners and

30.03.2009 wit enjoyed owners nature of a lic principles that o the person ass contention that any event, the C upon death and them. There is n

44.

Lea admissibility an of affidavits an allegations of f Court examined is consistent with the pleadin possession and is therefore sustai e appellant further submitted of owner and occupier and not o d it could not be terminated to th f the original licensor. The law i right which does not create an the death of the licensor unless t he licence should survive. On the e appellant was allowed to occup their agents and that the licen th effect from 15.04.2009. Th ship rights was rejected for the r cence and its termination upon operate where indeed the licensor serting ownership itself failed the licence survived as a propri Courts below have considered t d have correctly applied the leg no reason for this Court to substit arned counsel for the appellant a nd probative value of certain do nd receipts exhibited on behalf forgery and fabrication. The tria d those allegations. It is axiomati

ngs and the evidence about inable. that the relationship between of licensor-licensee, and that eve he detriment of the appellant's h is clear that a licence is a perso interest in the land and ordina there are circumstances showing e facts the trial and appellate Cou py the ground floor as a licensee nse was terminated by notice da he appellant's contention that reasons stated earlier. The perso n death of the licensor are le r was the true owner, whereas he d to produce registered title, ietary right is without substance the question of survival of lice gal test to the material facts bef tute its view. also raised specific objections to ocuments, in particular photocop f of the appellant and relied up al Court and the Lower Appell ic that allegations of forgery requ

- en if eirs onal arily g an urts e by ated he onal egal ere, . In ence fore pies pon late

robust proof an evidence. The a other crucial do entitled to attac explanation for conflicting litig and accept what applied that app as it was suffi appellant's evi narrative.

45.

Sub-GPA confe possession from a sale with regis be resolved by overlooks the withdrawn his m claim by an aut occupation. The adjudicate upon as here, possess counter-claim fo title may be th nd, normally, the production of appellant's failure to produce the ocuments substantially weakened ch little weight to mere photoco non-production. Further, wher ations and criminal complaints t is proved on preponderance. On proach and accepted the responde ficient to show a subsisting p dentiary shortcomings justifie e appellant advanced a further ferred eviction powers, the Su m a person who had obtained own stered deed, in short, that a lis be y a counter-claim in the ma procedural posture i.e. the a main injunctive suit. What was b thorised agent to recover posses e remedy sought and granted wa n conclusively who the absolute o ion is permissive and the agent h or possession is maintainable ev he subject matter of a separat

originals or appropriate second e originals of Ex.P-178/P-178A d his case. The Courts below w opies in the absence of satisfact re the record contains instances , the Court must sift the evide n this record, both the Courts bel ent's documentary evidence inso power to recover possession. T ed the rejection of his contr legal proposition that even if ub-GPA holder could not reco nership by adverse possession or etween strangers as to title could anner permitted. That submiss appellant had instituted and la before the trial Court was a coun sion from a person in unauthori as possessory in nature and did owner was for all purposes. Whe holds specific authority to eject, ven though the ultimate question te proceeding. The Courts bel

- dary were tory s of nce low ofar rary over r by not sion ater nter-ised not ere, n of

correctly confin to decide title fo

46.

concurrent find Ex.DX-36 did n this Court, a m from authority validly empowe occupiers. This correct. The Co the respondent t of the principal,

47.

I h counsel for the Chinniyan & A v. State of Hary with the propo immovable prop sell, a will, or a Section 54 of th reliance placed the present case ownership upo categorically he could not trans ned their decree to possession an orever; that restraint is sound and e contention that there is som dings are contradictory i.e., that not convey title but nevertheless misreading of the judgments. Th to manage. A power of attorn er the attorney to manage the p s distinction is at the heart of the urts below meticulously explain the owner but it gave him author that is a legally coherent stance have also carefully considered appellant, namely Smt. Kasth nr., 2016 AIR (SCW) 609, and yana & Another, 2011(4) RCR ( sition of law laid down in th perty cannot be transferred or c a power of attorney, and that onl he Transfer of Property Act can c on those authorities by the appe e. The impugned decrees of the n the respondent–counter cla eld that the Sub-General Power o sfer ownership. The relief gra

d mesne profits and did not purp d conforms to settled procedure. me fundamental illegality beca t the Courts below both held t s allowed possession, is, in view he Courts distinguished owners ney may not create title yet it property and to evict unauthori e concurrent findings and is lega ned that the Sub-GPA did not m rity to recover possession on beh and not a contradiction. d the judgments cited by learn uri Radhakrishnan & Ors. v. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. L (Civil) 669. There can be no qua hose authorities that ownership conveyed through an agreement ly a duly registered sale deed un create or convey title. However, ellant is misplaced in the contex e Courts below have not confer aimant, rather, both Courts h of Attorney (Ex.DX-36) did not anted to the respondent was

- port ause that w of ship can ised ally make half ned M. Ltd. arrel p of t to nder t of rred have

declaration of o capacity of a d manage the pro Hence, the princ decisions does reasoning of the authority under

48.

On respondent Har Sita Bali, 2003 Mad 216, were hold that a lice interest in prope The application the appellant w terminated by no supports the con Conclusion

49.

In t in the Regular

03.07.2015 and appellate Court No.1 for posse Chandigarh, tog

15.04.2009 till ownership but recovery of pos duly authorized Sub-GPA hold operty and initiate eviction proc ciple in Suraj Lamp (supra) and not advance the appellant's ca e Courts below that title could n the GPA could sustain the count n the other hand, the judgments ri Dass v. Sagar Chand, 2017( 3(3) RCR (Civil) 243 and Chin aptly relied upon by the Courts ense is a mere personal permis erty, and terminates on revocati of these authorities to the presen as found to be in permissive po otice dated 30.03.2009. The ratio ncurrent findings of the Courts be the result, for the reasons record Second Appeal. The concurr d 09.05.2019 passed by the lear , respectively, are affirmed. Th ession of the ground floor o gether with mesne profits at the actual delivery of possession, a

ssession and mesne profits in der empowered under clause 6 eedings on behalf of the princip d Kasthuri Radhakrishnan (sup ase. It, if anything, reinforces not pass through GPA but that va ter-claim. s cited by learned counsel for

(2) RCR (Civil) 80, Sunder La nnan v. Ranjithammal, AIR 19 below. These authorities uniform sion, does not create any right ion or on the death of the licens nt facts is direct and justified, si ossession and the license had b o of these cases, therefore, squar elow. ded above, this Court finds no m rent judgments and decrees da rned trial Court and learned low he decree in favour of respond of House No. 222, Sector 44 e rate of ₹25,000 per month fr as computed by the trial Court

- 6 to pal. pra) alid al v. mly t or sor. ince een rely merit ated wer dent 4-A,

reduced/confirm recorded in the law subject to t shall pay costs costs below.

50.

Pen

November 04, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh med by the Appellate Court, sh appeal papers up to 14.10.2025 the usual adjustments for amoun of this appeal to the respondent nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

all stand. The balance amount 5) shall be paid in accordance w nts already realized. The appell t, parties shall bear their respect stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o

- (as with lant