The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a Second Regular Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), holding that an unregistered gift deed cannot create any right, title, or interest in a property. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the appellant failed to prove her possession or title, and that no substantial question of law arose for the court’s consideration.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Suraj Mukhi, filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 297/2018) for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents—her brothers-in-law Kaptan Singh, Hari Parkash, and Rame.
According to the plaint, Suraj Mukhi claimed to be the owner in possession of a constructed house admeasuring 50 square yards out of Khasra No. 141, situated in Lal Dora Abadi, Village Bijwasan, New Delhi (the “Suit Property”). Her late husband, Bijay Singh Rana, was the sibling of the respondents.
She asserted that the suit property was gifted to her and her late husband by her father-in-law, late Sh. Bhartu Singh, by virtue of a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Gift Deed, Affidavit, and Will dated August 20, 1986. Sh. Bhartu Singh passed away on July 1, 1989, and her husband died on September 12, 2000.
The appellant stated that late Bhartu Singh had partitioned all his owned properties via a family settlement during his lifetime, after which his siblings lived separately. On October 18, 2018, the appellant visited the suit property, where the respondents allegedly arrived, claimed ownership, and quarreled with her. A call was made to the police, who advised the parties that it was a civil dispute and directed her to file a civil suit. Following further alleged threats of dispossession on October 22, 2018, and the respondents’ refusal to reconstruct a demolished wall of the property, the appellant approached the trial court seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions.
Arguments of the Parties
The Respondents’ Defense: The respondents filed a written statement asserting that the appellant was neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. They claimed the appellant had prepared forged and fabricated documents.
On merits, the respondents contended that the property had fallen to their father’s share in a family settlement many years ago and that they had been in continuous possession of it since birth. They argued that the appellant’s site plan was incorrect and the property was not specified properly. They further stated that the property consisted only of a dilapidated room without a latrine, bathroom, or kitchen, which they used to store cattle fodder and household articles. They denied that Sh. Bhartu Singh had ever gifted the property to the appellant and her late husband.
Evidence Adduced: The appellant examined herself as PW1 and produced a site plan, GPA, Gift Deed, Will, and other documents (Ex. PW1/A to PW1/J). She also examined PW2, Dinesh Sejwal, who identified his father’s signatures on the GPA, Gift Deed, and Will dated August 22, 1986.
The respondents examined Respondent No. 1, Kaptan Singh, as DW1. They also summoned officials from the Notary Cell (DW2 and DW3). DW2 deposed that no person by the name of M.L. Sood was enrolled as a Notary. However, DW3 produced records demonstrating that a license was issued to Mohan Lal Sood for the period from January 20, 1977, to January 19, 1992, alongside the Notary Register.
Findings of the Lower Courts
The Civil Judge dismissed the suit on November 30, 2022. The trial court observed that the GPA, Gift Deed, Affidavit, and Will relied upon by the appellant were unregistered and therefore ineffective in transferring title. The court also held that there was no cogent evidence to prove her physical possession of the property, noting that she had only produced a single 26-year-old electricity bill from 1992.
Furthermore, the trial court noted that the appellant had not sought a declaration of her title despite a cloud being cast on it, and had failed to prove that the wall was demolished by the respondents.
The First Appellate Court (ADJ) concurred with the findings of the Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal on December 9, 2025.
High Court’s Analysis
In her grounds of challenge, the appellant argued that even though the Gift Deed was unregistered, it could be relied upon for collateral purposes under the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, placing reliance on Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi (2022). She also contended that the trial court erred in framing an issue on title in an injunction suit, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2033.
Rejecting the appellant’s arguments, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed:
“The learned Civil Judge had rightly observed that an unregistered Gift Deed cannot create any right, title, interest in favor of the Plaintiff.”
The High Court noted that the Will (Ex. PW1/E) relied upon by the appellant “was not proved in accordance with Section 68 Evidence Act, and thus could not be considered in evidence.”
With regard to the necessity of a declaration of title in such disputes, Justice Krishna upheld the lower courts’ application of Anathula Sudhakar:
“The learned Civil Judge also rightly relied upon Anathula Sudhakar (Supra) to observe that when there is a cloud on the title of a person, no Injunction can be granted, unless a person seeks a Declaration in respect of a title. The Plaintiff’s basis for protection of possession was on title, which was not proved.”
On the issue of physical possession, the High Court concurred with the lower courts’ finding that the appellant had failed to prove actual possession. The court noted that the appellant had admitted during cross-examination that her site plan was incorrect and had failed to rebut the respondents’ evidence that the property was a dilapidated room without basic amenities used to store cattle fodder.
Regarding the mandatory injunction to reconstruct the wall, the High Court held:
“the relief of Mandatory Injunction for directing the Defendants to reconstruct the wall, was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence whatsoever produced by the Plaintiff that the wall had been demolished by the Defendants. Furthermore, once the possession itself was not established, the question of demolition or reconstruction of wall in the Suit Property, did not arise.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that both the trial court and the first appellate court had recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the appellant’s lack of title documents and physical possession. Emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the court under Section 100 CPC, Justice Krishna stated:
“Both the Courts have recorded a finding on fact of the Plaintiff neither having any title, documents or possession of the Suit Property. In fact, the challenge is only to the findings on fact, which is beyond the scope of the Second Regular Appeal.”
The Court declared that there was “no substantial question of law raised in the present Appeal,” and dismissed the second appeal and any pending applications.
Case Details
- Case Title: Suraj Mukhi v. Kaptan Singh & Ors.
- Case No.: RSA 56/2026, CM APPL. 19173/2026 (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4419)
- Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
- Date of Judgment: May 18, 2026
