The Delhi High Court, while dismissing an appeal, held that in a suit for injunction against dispossession simplicitor or a suit for possession simplicitor, the plaintiff is not mandated to provide proof of title and ownership.

The court observed that if the case does not involve a dispute relating to the title of property, proof of title is not required. The law does recognise possessory rights over immovable property. The single bench comprising of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that:-

"It is well settled that, in a suit for possession simplicitor or an injunction against dispossession simplicitor, the plaintiff is not required to establish title or ownership. The plaintiff is only required to establish a better right to remain in possession of the suit property as compared to the right of the defendant.

Further, the court added that a person who is in the continual lawful possession of property is allowed to continue the possession in accordance with the law established under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.

The present petition is the second appeal filed against the decree relating to a permanent injunction against the appellant from forcefully entering the disputed property or forcibly dispossessing the respondent without adhering to due process of law under Section 100 of the CPC.

In the original petition, the present appellant was the defendant who claimed to have peaceful possession of the disputed property. It was claimed that the appellant broke the locks of the property and made a forced entry.

The court, in addition to the above observation, held that, other than the bare allegations in the written declaration, the petitioners had not presented any evidence to support the case outlined above. No written evidence was submitted to the courts below in support of the claims, and none was presented orally. The court relied on the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana, wherein it has been held that even though title could not be transferred under the Agreement to Sell, GPA, and Will, the aforementioned agreements, if properly and validly completed, did confer certain rights over the subject property under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1883.

Case Title: Saleem & Ors. v. Wahid Malik