Gratuitous Possession Does Not Ripen Into Ownership—Brother Cannot Resist Eviction After Licence is Revoked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Mandatory Injunction

“A Family Arrangement Cannot Override Registered Gift Deeds—No Co-Ownership Without Title or Proof”, Allahabad High Court delivered a decisive judgment, dismissing an appeal against a decree of mandatory injunction and damages, and holding that a brother living in part of a family house as a licensee cannot claim ownership or co-tenancy without proof of title. Justice Sandeep Jain observed that long-standing permissive possession does not convert into a legal right, especially when the property was gifted by the mother to one son through valid registered deeds.

“It is proved that the defendant was residing gratuitously in the disputed property, and merely on the basis of his long possession, it cannot be said that he has acquired any right or title,” held the Court, rejecting the appellant’s claim that he was a co-owner or had an irrevocable licence due to expenses incurred in construction.

The Court further affirmed that once the licence was revoked by notice dated 4.8.2014, the defendant’s continued possession became unauthorized, and the plaintiff—who held title through two registered gift deeds—was fully entitled to recover possession by way of a suit for mandatory injunction, without the need for a separate suit for possession.

“A Licence is a Personal Privilege—Once Revoked, the Licensee Must Vacate”: Court Says Licence Was Not Irrevocable Just Because the Defendant Was a Brother

The Court laid emphasis on the legal nature of a licence, holding it as a personal, non-transferable and revocable privilege, which does not create any proprietary interest in the immovable property. The defendant’s continued occupation after revocation was clearly unjustified.

Relying on Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh (1985) 2 SCC 332, the Court reiterated,
“After the termination of the licence, the licensee is under an obligation to surrender his possession to the owner, and if he fails to do so, a suit for mandatory injunction can be filed to compel the licensee to discharge this obligation.”

The Court also clarified that in such cases, a mandatory injunction suit is fully maintainable, and the plaintiff is not required to file a suit for possession separately, provided the suit is filed within a reasonable time from revocation.

The defendant’s argument that he had raised construction over the portion he occupied and had invested money, making the licence irrevocable, was rejected on the ground that no sanctioned plan or ownership documents supported his claim. The Court observed, “The defendant failed to prove that he raised independent constructions; on the contrary, compounding and sanction were done in the name of his mother.”

“A Registered Gift Cannot Be Cancelled Without a Deed of Revocation—Allegations of Fraud Must Be Proved, Not Merely Alleged”

The plaintiff’s title to the property was based on two registered gift deeds dated 6.7.2009 and 9.5.2014, executed by Smt. Santosh Kumari, their mother, who had purchased the property in her own name in 1994 from her stridhan and was recognized as the sole owner. The defendant alleged that the gift deeds were obtained through coercion and were forged.

Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that there was no evidence on record to show that the deeds were executed under fraud or undue influence. Justice Jain observed,
“There is no iota of evidence to prove that the gift deeds were executed by Smt. Santosh Kumari under coercion and undue influence. The burden to prove such allegations lies heavily on the person who challenges a registered deed—mere suspicion or relationship cannot invalidate a lawful transfer.”

The Court referred to Renikuntla Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma (2014) 9 SCC 445, to reiterate that delivery of possession is not a necessary condition for a valid gift of immovable property. It also noted that the registered Will executed by the mother in 2002 clearly recognized her as sole owner, which defeated the defendant’s claim that the property was jointly owned or acquired by the family.

“No Ownership Without Title—Sentiment or Family Relations Cannot Override Evidence of Lawful Possession and Title”

Justice Jain emphasized that mere sentimental grievance of being excluded from property or possession based on long cohabitation in a joint family house does not create ownership rights.

“The defendant failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish ownership, and the trial court rightly held that gratuitous possession does not confer any title,” observed the Court.

Referring to Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Court emphasized that even a caretaker or relative must vacate when called upon by the owner, stating,
“Even long possession by a relative or caretaker does not create any title or right to remain in possession.”

“No Fatal Error Even If Gift Deeds Were Not Exhibited—Substantive Evidence Prevails Over Procedural Lapses”

The defendant argued that the trial court erred in relying on documents like the gift deeds and sale deed since they were not formally exhibited. The High Court dismissed this as a procedural irregularity, not affecting the core findings of ownership.

Citing Neeraj Dutta v. State (2023) 4 SCC 731 and Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 2 SCC 186, the Court held,
“Merely because documents were not exhibited does not mean they cannot be looked at when duly proved by cogent oral evidence and admissions. Technicalities should not defeat justice.”

Invoking Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court concluded that no prejudice was caused to the appellant and the decree was legally sustainable.

“Damages Awarded at ₹10,000/Month for Unauthorized Stay—Court Invokes Order 41 Rule 33 to Do Complete Justice”

Though the trial court had denied the plaintiff’s claim for mesne profits, the High Court exercised its power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and granted damages of ₹10,000 per month from 1.7.2019, the date of the trial court decree, till actual and vacant possession is handed over.

The Court noted that the interim order passed during appeal had already directed the appellant to deposit ₹10,000/month as use and occupation charges, and therefore he could not now object to the same being treated as damages.

Quoting Vaibhav Jain v. Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 2 SCC 208, the Court held, “The appellate court has full power to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed... even without a cross appeal.”

The defendant’s failure to vacate even after losing in the trial court justified imposition of monetary liability. The Court vacated all interim orders and directed the trial court to proceed with execution immediately.

The High Court concluded:“The appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent is entitled to damages at ₹10,000/month from 1.7.2019 till actual possession is handed over.”

The Court observed that no co-ownership can be presumed merely because parties are brothers, and law must recognize title, not sentiment.

Date of Decision: 18 November 2025