TITLE- NON- RECOGNITION OF WILL OR GPA IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

CASE NAME-Ghanshyam vs. YogendraRathi

CITATION- [Civil Appeal Nos. 7527-7528 of 2012]

COURT- Supreme Court of India

BENCH- JUSTICE.-JUSTICE PANKAJ MITTAL ,JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

DECIDED ON- 02nd June 2023

BRIEF FACTS –

The present case dealt with the eviction of the Defendant from a property, which is a part of H-768, J.J. Colony, Shakarpur, Delhi (Property).

- The Plaintiff claimed ownership of the Property based on the following documents: (i) Agreement to Sell dated 10.04.2002 (ii) Power of Attorney (iii) Memo of Possession (iv) Receipt of payment of sale consideration (v) “Will” of the Defendant-Appellant thereby bequeathing the Property in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent.

 - The Plaintiff-Respondent initially handed over possession of the Property to the Defendant-Appellant after execution of the Agreement to Sell. However, on the Defendant-Appellant’s request, the Plaintiff-Respondent allowed the Defendant-Appellant to occupy the ground floor and one room on the first floor as a licensee for a period of 3 months.

- Despite the expiry of the said License period and the termination of the License through a Notice dated 18.02.2003, the Defendant-Appellant failed to vacate the Property.

 - At Last, the Plaintiff-Respondent approached the Trial Court thereby, seeking eviction of the Defendant-Appellant and further, claimed mesne profits.

ISSUES –

The first question was whether the plaintiff had manipulated and fraudulently obtained the documents to falsely claim ownership of the property.

The second question was whether the plaintiff had the right to force the defendant to leave the property and be evicted from it.

The third question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation, called mesne profits, for the period during which the defendant unlawfully stayed on the property.

JUDGEMENT –

The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court after being dissatisfied with the High Court's decision. In the Supreme Court's judgment, it was stated that although the Agreement to Sell alone does not transfer ownership, the plaintiff had obtained possessory rights over the property through part performance of the agreement. The defendant, who occupied the property as a licensee, had no right to disturb the plaintiff's possessory rights. The court also emphasized that the Power of Attorney and Will executed by the defendant were irrelevant in establishing the plaintiff's ownership. The court concluded that the plaintiff had possessory title to the property, while the defendant had lost possession and no longer had the right to continue occupying it. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's orders, ruling in favor of the plaintiff's eviction and entitlement to mesne profits.

In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff had possessory rights over the property through part performance of the Agreement to Sell. The defendant, who initially occupied the property as a licensee, had no right to disturb the plaintiff's possessory rights. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the previous court orders, granting the plaintiff the right to evict the defendant from the property and receive mesne profits.