The Delhi High Court has dismissed a second appeal filed by a woman challenging a possession decree passed against her in a long-running property dispute in Dwarka's JJ Colony area. The Court held that the plaintiff had established a better possessory title over the property, while the appellant failed to show any lawful basis for continuing in occupation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the judgment on June 16, 2026, affirming the findings of the first appellate court.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned a property located in Pappan Kalan, Dwarka, New Delhi. The plaintiff, Salma Khan, claimed that she had purchased the property from the original allottee, Ram Lal, in June 2006 through documents such as a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter, Receipt, Affidavit and Will.
According to her, she later permitted Khatiza Begam to occupy the property and alleged that the occupant failed to vacate despite repeated demands. She subsequently approached the civil court seeking possession, arrears of rent and damages.
The trial court dismissed the suit in April 2024 after finding that the alleged landlord-tenant relationship had not been proved. However, the appellate court reversed that decision and granted possession to the plaintiff on the basis of her superior claim to the property.
The appellant argued that the plaintiff's case was founded on an unproved tenancy claim and that unregistered documents such as GPA and Agreement to Sell could not confer ownership rights. It was also contended that the suit property was situated in a JJ Colony and that the proceedings were barred under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956.
The respondent countered that the appellate court had correctly assessed the evidence and that the second appeal merely sought a fresh examination of facts, which is not permissible unless a substantial question of law arises.
The High Court noted that records showed the property had originally been allotted to Ram Lal and that the plaintiff had produced documents evidencing transfer of possessory rights from him.
Referring to settled principles governing possession disputes, the Court observed that where a plaintiff demonstrates a superior right to possession and the defendant cannot establish any competing claim, the court is entitled to examine the comparative strength of the parties' claims.
“The Plaintiff had successfully established a better possessory title flowing from the original allottee, whereas the Defendant had failed to demonstrate any lawful entitlement to remain in occupation of the property,” the Court observed.
The Court also found that the appellant had not produced any document supporting her claim that her late husband had purchased the property from the original allottee. School records relied upon by the appellant were held insufficient to prove possession from 2006 as claimed.
On the objection under the Slum Areas Act, the Court noted that official records showed the property was not situated in a notified slum area, making the suit maintainable.
Holding that the plaintiff had established a better claim to possession and that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence, the Delhi High Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference.
The Court upheld the decree granting possession in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the second appeal filed by Khatiza Begam.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Khatiza Begam v. Ms. Salma Khan
Case Number: RSA 17/2025
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: 16 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
