Unregistered Gift Deeds and Wills Cannot Convey Title In Injunction Suits: Delhi HC

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has clarified that unregistered documents including gift deeds and GPA cannot be used to establish title or secure possessory injunctions when the ownership is under a cloud. The Court dismissed a second appeal, emphasizing that concurrent findings of fact regarding lack of possession cannot be re-agitated in a second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna presided over the matter, evaluating a challenge against concurrent judgments from the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court which had dismissed a widow's suit for protection of property. The bench observed that the appellant failed to provide any cogent evidence to establish either her legal title or her physical possession over the suit property located in Village Bijwasan.

Legal Validity of Unregistered Documents

The Court noted that the appellant attempted to establish her title based on a General Power of Attorney, Gift Deed, and Will dated 20.08.1986. However, these documents were unregistered. The Court held that an unregistered Gift Deed cannot create any right, title, or interest in favor of the party, particularly when challenged by other legal heirs.

Regarding the reliance on a Will, the Court observed that it was not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principles laid down in Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddy, stating that where a cloud is cast on the plaintiff's title, a mere suit for injunction is not maintainable without seeking a prayer for declaration.

Failure to Prove Possession and Demolition

The appellant had also sought a mandatory injunction for the reconstruction of a demolished wall. The Court found that the appellant could not produce any evidence of possession, noting that a single electricity bill from 1992 was insufficient to prove possession in 2018.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The learned Civil Judge also rightly relied upon Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddy 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."

Background:

The dispute arose between Suraj Mukhi (the appellant) and her late husband’s brothers (the respondents). The appellant claimed to be the owner in possession of a 50 sq. yard house in Khasra No. 141, Village Bijwasan, gifted to her by her father-in-law in 1986. She alleged that in October 2018, the respondents demolished a wall and threatened her with dispossession.

The respondents contended that the property was in their possession since birth and was used to store cattle fodder. They argued that the documents produced by the appellant were forged and fabricated. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2022, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge in 2025. In the current Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 proceedings, the appellant cited Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi to argue that an unregistered gift deed could be used for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Registration Act. However, the High Court found no merit in these arguments, concluding that the findings of fact regarding possession and title were well-reasoned and required no interference.

Case Details:
Case No.: RSA 56/2026, CM APPL. 19173/2026
Case Title: SURAJ MUKHI v. KAPTAN SINGH & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Mr. Shubham, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ripu Daman Kaushik, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 331