Plaintiff With Better Possessory Title Can Recover Property From Occupant Without Better Right: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a plaintiff who establishes a better possessory title over a property is entitled to recover possession from an occupant who fails to prove any superior or lawful right to remain in occupation.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna cited the maxim “Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eum cui ius sit possessionis”, i.e. possession is good against the whole world except the person having a better right.
The Court was dealing with a property dispute where the Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property from the original allottee in June 2006 through a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will.
She further alleged that she had inducted the Defendant as a tenant in January 2009 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,500, but the Defendant defaulted in payment of rent and refused to vacate the premises despite termination of the tenancy.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that the Plaintiff had failed to establish the alleged landlord-tenant relationship. However, the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and held that although the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff did not constitute an absolute conveyance, they established a better title flowing from the original allottee.
Upholding the appellate court's view, the High Court noted that the Plaintiff had proved the original allotment through official records and had further established that the allottee executed GPA, Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter and Will, in her favour.
Reliance was placed on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) where the Supreme Court recognised that where rival claims are based on possession, the court is required to examine the comparative strength of the parties' rights.
Applying the said principle, the Court held that the Plaintiff had successfully established a better possessory title flowing from the original allottee, whereas the Defendant had failed to demonstrate any lawful entitlement to remain in occupation of the property.
“The learned ADJ rightly noted that the Defendant though denied the title in favour of the Plaintiff in her Written Statement, but at the same time did not claim any title in her favour; rather only the possessory right from original allottee and that too, without placing any material on record,” it noted.
As such, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree for possession in favour of the Plaintiff.
Appearance: Ms. Namita Roy and Ms. Gopa Biswas, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. Mohd Moonis Abbasi, Adv. for Respondent
Case title: Smt. Khatiza Begam v. Ms. Salma Khan
Case no.: RSA 17/2025