Unregistered Gift Deed Cannot Create Title; Injunction Suit Not Maintainable Without Seeking Declaration If Ownership Is Disputed: Delhi High Court

"An unregistered gift deed cannot create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction is not maintainable when the plaintiff's title is disputed and the claims are based on unregistered documents.

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that a plaintiff must seek a formal declaration of title under such circumstances, especially when the documents produced—such as an unregistered gift deed—fail to meet the mandatory requirements of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act.

The appellant, Suraj Mukhi, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction claiming ownership and possession of a 50-square-yard property in Village Bijwasan based on a GPA, Gift Deed, and Will executed in 1986. The respondents, who are her brothers-in-law, contested the suit, asserting that they were in possession of the property since birth following a family settlement. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, leading to the present second appeal before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether an unregistered gift deed and an unproven Will could form the basis of a decree for injunction. The court was also called upon to determine whether a suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable when there is a clear cloud over the plaintiff’s title to the suit property.

Unregistered Gift Deeds Cannot Transfer Title

The Court emphasized that under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a gift of immovable property must be effected by a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. The appellant’s reliance on an unregistered gift deed was found to be legally untenable for the purpose of establishing ownership.

The bench noted that while the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, allows unregistered documents to be used for "collateral purposes," using such a document as the primary foundation to prove title in an injunction suit does not qualify as a collateral purpose. The court held that such a document cannot create or extinguish any right or interest in the property.

"An unregistered gift deed cannot affect the title transfer in the suit property."

Mandatory Proof Of Will Under Evidence Act

Regarding the Will relied upon by the appellant, the Court observed that it had not been proved in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The law requires that at least one attesting witness must be examined to prove the execution of a Will.

Since no attesting witness was produced to verify the document, the Court held that the Will could not be read in evidence. The bench affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to exclude the Will from consideration, noting that the appellant failed to meet the statutory burden of proof.

Injunction Suit Not Maintainable Without Declaration Of Title

The Court reiterated the settled legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddy, which mandates that where a plaintiff’s title is under a cloud or is disputed, a simple suit for injunction is not sufficient. The plaintiff must necessarily seek a decree of declaration of title.

The bench found that the respondents had raised a bona fide dispute regarding the appellant's ownership, creating a "cloud" over her title. By failing to seek a declaration, the appellant could not maintain a suit for permanent injunction merely on the basis of disputed possession and unproven documents.

"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."

Failure To Prove Possession Over Suit Property

On the factual aspect of possession, the Court observed that the appellant failed to provide cogent evidence to show she was in physical control of the property. The only document produced was a 26-year-old electricity bill, which the court deemed insufficient to establish current possession.

The bench noted that the respondents had provided evidence showing the property was in a dilapidated state and used by them for cattle fodder. Since the appellant could not prove her possession, her prayer for a mandatory injunction to reconstruct a demolished wall was also rejected as the question of demolition did not arise.

Limited Scope Of Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC

Finally, the Court addressed the maintainability of the Second Regular Appeal, noting that under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court can only intervene if a "substantial question of law" arises. The bench observed that the findings of the lower courts were based on a thorough appreciation of facts and evidence.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna concluded that the challenge in the appeal was essentially directed at findings of fact, which are not open to interference in a second appeal. Finding no merit or substantial legal question, the court dismissed the appeal.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Second Regular Appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge. The ruling reaffirms that litigants cannot bypass the requirement of seeking a declaration of title by filing a suit for injunction when their ownership is based on unregistered or unproven documents.

Date of Decision: 18 May 2026