Unregistered GPA Sales Convey No Title Under JJR Scheme, Co-Sharer Can Sue For Possession Against Unauthorized Occupants Under Section 96 CPC: Delhi High Court

"The respondent, being a co-sharer in the suit property is legally entitled to file the present suit against the appellant without impleading Sh. Govind Prasad, as the appellant has failed to bring on record any trustworthy evidence showing that Sh. Govind Prasad has been in legal possession of the suit property being its owner." Affirming that unregistered power of attorney transactions do not confer any valid title or interest over public housing allotments, the Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta on November 3, 2026, held that a co-sharer is fully entitled to seek recovery of possession against an unauthorized occupant without being hindered by alleged transfers made through notarized documents.

Dismissing a regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court upheld the trial court's decree ordering the eviction of an unauthorized occupant from a property allotted under the Jhuggi Jhopri Removal Scheme.

The litigation stemmed from a dispute concerning property bearing No. O1st/73, JJ Colony, Madangir, New Delhi, which was allotted to the respondent’s deceased father on a license basis under the Jhuggi Jhopri Removal Scheme in 1967. Following the deaths of the original allottee and his wife intestate, one of the legal heirs handed over possession of the premises to the appellant pursuant to an alleged sale. The respondent instituted a civil suit for possession and mandatory injunction, contending that properties allotted under the welfare scheme could not be alienated and that the appellant had acquired no legal rights over the premises.

The primary legal issues that fell for determination before the High Court were whether an occupant can claim lawful ownership or possessory title on the basis of unregistered and notarized agreement to sell, power of attorney, and will documents in respect of property allotted under the Jhuggi Jhopri Removal Scheme; and whether a suit for possession filed by a co-sharer is bad for non-joinder of an alleged purchaser claiming rights under such unregistered documents.

Examining the evidentiary record, the High Court observed that the appellant himself admitted that the suit property originally belonged to the respondent's father and was subject to the regulatory conditions of the Jhuggi Jhopri Removal Scheme. Official testimony from the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board established that no prevailing policy permitted the sale or purchase of properties allotted under the scheme.

Notarized sale documents and power of attorney transactions create no legal title or interest

The Court underscored that the documents produced by the appellant, comprising a notarized agreement to sell, general power of attorney, affidavit, possession letter, and will, failed to create any legal interest in the immovable property. The bench relied heavily on the landmark precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana.

The Court reiterated the binding principle that immovable property can only be lawfully transferred through a registered deed of conveyance. Quoting the Supreme Court's ruling in Suraj Lamp, the bench stressed that transactions categorized as GPA sales do not amount to completed transfers, cannot convey title, and cannot be recognized as deeds of ownership in municipal or revenue records.

Discrepancies in execution expose absence of legal entitlement to transfer possession

Scrutinizing the executed paperwork, the High Court noted sharp anomalies, observing that while the agreement to sell and receipt were executed in favor of the appellant, the possession letter and will were drawn in favor of the appellant's son. The bench observed that the appellant placed no credible evidence on record to demonstrate that the respondent’s brother possessed the legal authority or exclusive competence to deliver possession of the property.

In light of the statutory embargo on transferring the licensed property and the completely unregistered nature of the documents, the Court concluded that the appellant held the status of an unauthorized occupant rather than a lawful owner.

Co-sharer can effectively sue for possession without joining nominal third-party buyers

Addressing the appellant's contention that the suit was defective for non-joinder of necessary parties under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court firmly rejected the argument that the appellant’s son ought to have been impleaded. The bench held that since no trustworthy evidence demonstrated lawful possession or ownership in favor of the son, an effective decree could be legitimately passed in his absence.

The bench affirmed that a co-sharer retains full legal entitlement to institute an action in ejectment against trespassers or unauthorized occupants to preserve and recover the estate, making the suit maintainable and properly constituted.

The High Court held that the findings recorded by the trial court suffered from no error of law or fact, thereby dismissing the regular first appeal and affirming the decree directing the appellant and his family members to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property.

Date of Decision: 03rd November, 2026