The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear evidence of relinquishment of tenancy and the need for possession to be hostile and adverse to the true owner in adverse possession claims.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal was passed over on the first call inasmuch as no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant. Even on the second call, no one appears for the appellant. Since this is an old RSA of the year 2008, and it is still pending at the stage of admission in spite of over two dozen dates of hearings, I do not propose to adjourn the matter and am disposing of the appeal as per the record and arguments urged on behalf of respondent no.1. Respondents have very vehemently opposed any adjournment because it is contended that appellant is enjoying benefit of possession of the suit property in spite of concurrent judgments of the courts below and only because of strategizing for getting the case adjourned no one appears for the appellant.

2. This regular second appeal is filed impugning the judgment of the appellate court dated 16.4.2008 which has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant therein, and who is appellant herein, against the judgment and decree dated 27.7.2005 of the trial court decreeing the suit for possession in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

3. The subject matter of the dispute is a land comprised in khasra no.112/1 and 112/2 totalling to 10 bighas and 14 biswas, situated at village Shakurpur, Delhi. The suit land was owned by one Nihal Singh who was the father of the plaintiff and who had leased out the land to the appellant herein for a period of 20 years by means of a registered lease deed dated 1.6.1948. The lease was a lease of a land and not of a built-up property. The appellant/defendant no.1 constructed sheds on the subject land and also inducted defendant nos. 2 to 8 therein who are /were in possession of certain portions of the suit property. The lease expired on 31.5.1968 by efflux of time. Sh. Nihal Singh, the original owner expired on 21.12.1978 and whereafter Sh. Ram Chander the original plaintiff, and who is the son of the deceased Nihal Singh, became the owner of the suit property. It may be mentioned that Sh. Ram Chander died during the pendency of the proceedings in the courts below and he was substituted thereafter by his legal heirs, who are now the contesting respondents 1(i) to 1(vii). Since the appellant failed to vacate the suit property after expiry of the lease, the subject suit for possession came to be filed.

4. The appellant before the courts below essentially laid three defences seeking dismissal of the suit for possession:-

(i) Appellant/defendant no.1 had became owner of the suit property by virtue of adverse possession, more so because the land in question had in fact been acquired by Chief Commissioner of Delhi under Section 3 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 vide notification dated 30.12.1950.

(ii) The original plaintiff Sh. Ram Chander had no locus standi to file the suit inasmuch as, other legal heirs of Sh. Nihal Singh were not added as parties to the suit.

(iii) The third defence was a facet of first defence inasmuch as in the third defence it is contended that once the land is acquired, appellant was not bound to give possession to the plaintiff but only to the appropriate authority.

I may note that a reference in this judgment to the contesting respondents will mean reference to the plaintiff and all persons, who subsequently became the plaintiff in the suit.

5. I may also state that before the appellate court appellant also moved two applications. One was for leading of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the second was for framing of additional issues under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. These applications were dismissed by the appellate court by giving detailed reasoning including the aspects that such applications which are filed more than 24 years after the suit was filed cannot be allowed, more so because no person can be allowed to fill in alleged lacunae in this case by leading evidence although innumerable number of opportunities were given for leading of evidence before the trial court