Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1082
High Court of Delhi
VALMIKI J. MEHTA
Dwarka Prasad & Another
Versus
Baldev Kishan Shahi (Since Deceased) Now Represented By Legal Heirs
RSA No. 5 of 2012
Decided On : 15-04-2014
For the Appellants:M. L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Siddharth Bambha, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving ownership and the chain of title documents in property disputes, along with the consideration of possession and the law of limitation.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Disabled Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation),1984 Act - [CPC, Disabled Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation),1984 Act] - The judgment discusses the ownership of a property, the validity of sale deeds, and the issue of limitation. The court analyzed the evidence to establish the ownership of the suit property and the chain of title documents. The court also considered the possession of the property and the applicability of the law of limitation. The judgment highlights the importance of proving ownership and the chain of title documents in property disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff claimed ownership of a property originally owned by the Government, while the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 claimed to have purchased the property from a different individual. The court analyzed the evidence to determine the ownership and possession of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property belonged to the respondent/plaintiff and that the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 failed to prove their ownership or possession of the property. The court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership and possession of the suit property, the validity of sale deeds, and the applicability of the law of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving ownership and the chain of title documents in property disputes. It also highlighted the need to establish possession and the applicability of the law of limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the ownership of the suit property in favor of the respondent/plaintiff and ruling that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)
1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the first appellate court dated 7.12.2011. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff and set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 24.2.2010 by which the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession of the suit property was dismissed. The suit property is plot No.36, Block No.3, Khasra No.3776/2635/783, Mauza Chandrawal @ Shahdara.
2(i) The case of the respondent/plaintiff (now represented by his legal heirs) was that the suit property was originally owned by the Government. The Government acting under the appropriate authority of Disabled Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation),1984 Act sold the suit property to one Sh. Amir Chand Shahi by means of the sale certificate dated 26.11.1960, Ex.PW2/1. The respondent/plaintiff is the legal heir of Sh. Amir Chand Shahi and the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 are said to have illegally trespassed into the suit property. The appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 contested the suit and pleaded that they were the owners of the suit property because they had purchased the same from one Sh. Surjeet Singh. Originally in the suit there were three defendants and the present appellant no.1 was the defendant no.2 in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff compromised the suit with the original defendant no.1, namely Sh. Subhash Chand and whose name was thereafter deleted from the array of parties. This compromise pertained to 100 sq yds out of the total area of 200 sq yds. The present dispute therefore concerns 100 sq yds of the property sold by the sale certificate Ex.PW2/1 and of which the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 are in possession.
(ii) The appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 also took up the defence that the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation.
(iii) The appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 further pleaded before the courts below that the property which is being claimed by the respondent/plaintiff is not the same suit property which is in the possession of the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3.
3. The first appellate court has held as under:-
(i) There cannot be any dispute that the suit property of 100 sq yds with the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 is very much the same property which is the subject matter of the sale certificate Ex.PW2/1 dated 26.11.1960.
(ii) The appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 cannot be the owners of the property because Sh. Surjeet Singh from whom the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3 claimed title was not shown to be the owner of the suit property i.e how and from whom Sh. Surjeet Singh (and his successor-in-interest Smt.Krishna Goel from whom the appellant no.2 Smt. Rewati Devi purchased the suit property) had become the owner was not proved.
(iii) The suit has been held not to be barred by limitation as the defendants claim to have been in possession of the suit property since the year 1960 but there was no such evidence on record to show the possession of Sh. Surjeet Singh from 1960 and thereafter of Smt. Krishna Goel to whom Sh. Surjeet Singh had sold the property. The first appellate court has also held that the appellant no.2/Smt. Rewati Devi purchased the property from one Smt. Krishna Goel through her constituted attorney/appellant no.1 by the sale deed registered in the year 1989, and since the suit was filed in the year 1991, the suit was within the 12 years period of limitation.
4(i) So far as the aspect that there is no confusion of the suit property being the same property which was subject matter of the sale certificate, Ex.PW2/1, the first appellate court has given the following reasoning:-
“26. It is admitted position that the previous defendant no.1/Sh. Subhash Chand purchased the northern side of the suit property from the defendant no.1 earlier from the previous owner and subsequently from the plaintiff.
27. Si
