Possession Alone Not Sufficient for Ownership; Registered Documents Also Essential: Rajasthan High Court

Jodhpur, 2 September (Kiran News) – The Rajasthan High Court has delivered a significant judgement in a property dispute case, stating that mere possession of property is not enough for ownership—registered documents are equally crucial. The court ruled that a decree based on a compromise cannot be considered complete simply by granting possession; the true benefit of the decree is realised only when the decree holder receives valid ownership documents.

Justice Farzand Ali made this observation in the case of Pooja vs. Mahendra Singh, which pertained to Pooja, a resident of Gangapur, Bhilwara, who had filed a suit for partition of ancestral property. As per the compromise reached on 17 August 2022, it was agreed that Pooja would be given Shop No. 3 on the ground floor. The agreement also stated that she would be assisted in obtaining a separate title deed, with signatures provided wherever required. Due to Pooja’s financial circumstances, it was decided that a gift deed would be executed instead of a sale deed.

After the agreement, the trial court ruled in Pooja’s favour, granting her full rights to the shop. However, despite this order, she did not receive formal ownership of the shop. She filed an execution petition, after which the civil court ordered possession and document preparation on 10 July 2023. On 25 July 2023, Pooja was given possession of the shop, but the necessary documents were not prepared, preventing her from selling, contracting, or availing loans on the property. She then applied under Section 151, requesting the court to direct her father Mahendra Singh and brothers Puneet and Vineet to execute a gift deed so she could obtain a separate title or lease.

Lower Court Rejected Plea, High Court Intervened

The Additional District Judge, Gangapur, dismissed Pooja’s application on 5 October 2023, stating that as the decree was compromise-based and possession had been delivered without objection, the court’s role had concluded. The trial court noted that any issue with the municipality granting the title deed was a matter between the municipality and the decree holder, not the civil court’s concern. Dissatisfied with this, Pooja approached the High Court.

High Court’s Firm Stand: Decree Is Not Just a Piece of Paper

The High Court held that the lower court erred by limiting its jurisdiction and denying the decree holder the actual benefit. A decree, the court said, should not become just a piece of paper or decorative object; it must be implemented in reality so the decree holder receives full relief as stated. The court ordered that all costs for preparing, stamping, and registering the gift deed would be borne by the judgment debtors (Mahendra Singh and his sons), since they themselves had opted for the gift deed to avoid unnecessary financial burden on the decree holder.

The High Court directed the execution court to set a specific date for the parties to appear before the sub-registrar in Gangapur/Bhilwara. Both the decree holder and judgment debtors must be present on that day, along with a court official, to ensure the process is completed smoothly. The court further clarified that after registration, a certified copy of the gift deed must be provided to the decree holder, who may then present it to relevant authorities such as the municipality or local body. The competent officer is to issue a separate title document or lease in favour of the decree holder regarding Shop No. 3.