Possession Is Good Against The Whole World Except The Person Having A Better Right: Delhi High Court Dismisses Second Appeal In JJ Colony Property Dispute
Defendant's bald assertion of purchase without date, document or receipt cannot displace plaintiff's documentary chain from original allottee; school records of 2010 cannot prove possession since 2006.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a second appeal in a property possession dispute arising out of a JJ Colony in Pappan Kalan, New Delhi, affirming the principle that possession is good against the whole world except the person having a better right, possessio contra omnes valet praeter eum cui ius sit possessionis. The Court held that a defendant who neither claims ownership nor produces any document establishing lawful entitlement cannot resist a decree for possession in favour of a plaintiff who has established better possessory title through a documentary chain flowing from the original allottee.
The Court further held that a defendant's bald assertion of having purchased property from the original allottee, unsupported by any specific date, receipt, agreement or allotment document, cannot displace a plaintiff's title documents, and that school records of a child from 2010-11 cannot establish possession since 2006 as claimed.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “The Ld. District Judge rightly invoked the settled principle embodied in 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. 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”.
Advocate Namita Roy appeared for the appellant and Advocate Mohd Moonis Abbasi appeared for the respondent.
The respondent-plaintiff, Salma Khan, claimed ownership of property No. F-206, Phase-II, Sector-3, Pappan Kalan, New Delhi through GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will executed on 19 June 2006 by the original allottee. She alleged that the property was orally let out to the appellant-defendant, Khatiza Begam, in January 2009 at ₹1,500 monthly rent, which remained unpaid after June 2010.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession, ₹52,500 arrears of rent, mesne profits and injunction. While the Civil Judge dismissed the suit for failure to establish a landlord-tenant relationship, the ADJ reversed the finding, holding that the plaintiff had a better title, decreeing possession with ₹5,000 lump sum mesne profits and 6% interest. The defendant thereafter filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court.
The Court found that the plaintiff had duly established her proprietary rights through the documentary chain from the original allottee, corroborated by her father's testimony and the MCD cash receipt, provisional identification slip and allottee ID card proving Ram Lal's original allotment. The defendant, by contrast, produced no receipt, agreement or allotment document to support her husband's alleged purchase and relied solely on her child's school records from 2010-11, which the Court held could not establish possession since 2006.
The Court noted the telling admission that during a BSES raid on 6 February 2018, the defendant gave the name of the plaintiff's daughter to avoid detection, conduct wholly inconsistent with the claim of independent ownership.
Applying Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 594 and Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558, the Court held that once the plaintiff discharged the initial burden through documentary evidence, the onus shifted to the defendant who failed to discharge it. On limitation, Article 65 of the Limitation Act prescribing twelve years for title-based possession suits was held applicable, the defendant having neither pleaded nor proved adverse possession. The Court found that all grounds in the second appeal raised pure questions of fact and disclosed no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
The second appeal was dismissed in its entirety with all pending applications disposed of, leaving the decree for possession passed by the Additional District Judge undisturbed.
Cause Title: Khatiza Begam v. Salma Khan (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5112)
Appearances:
Appellant: Namita Roy and Gopa Biswas, Advocates.
Respondent: Mohd Moonis Abbasi, Advocate.