Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
SAROJ YADAV - Appellant
Versus
UTTRA CHAUDHARY & ORS - Respondents
RSA 305/2015
Decided on : 19.08.2015
Mr. A.K. Mishra & Mr. Hemant Payak, Advocates
The identification of the suit property and the failure to establish ownership based on the presented chain of documents were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Exemption - Property Dispute - [R.S.A. 305/2015, C.M. No.15809/2015] - The court discussed the ownership of the suit property, the identification of the property, and the chain of documents relied upon by the appellant. The court found that the suit property fell in Khasra No.1577, not in Khasra No.1581 as claimed by the appellant. The appellant failed to establish ownership based on the chain of documents produced, and the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were consistent and based on cogent evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a second appeal to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the lower courts in a property dispute case. The respondent sought possession and permanent injunction against the appellant, claiming to be the owner of the suit property. The appellant contested the ownership and claimed that the suit property fell in Khasra No.1581, not in Khasra No.1577 as stated by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found in favor of the respondent, decreeing the suit for possession and permanent injunction. The courts relied on the identification of the suit property and the chain of documents presented by the appellant to establish ownership.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the suit property, the identification of the property, and the admissibility of additional evidence under Order XL Rule 27 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts relied on the identification of the suit property and the failure of the appellant to establish ownership based on the chain of documents presented. The consistent findings of the lower courts were upheld in the second appeal.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law was found to arise for consideration.
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
C.M. No.15810/2015
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
RSA 305/2015 and C.M. No.15809/2015
3. The appellant has preferred the present second appeal to assail the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-06, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in RCA 9/2015, preferred by the appellant/ defendant, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (West) in Suit No.631/2010 - filed by respondent No.1.
4. Respondent No.1/ Smt. Uttra Chaudhary had filed the suit in question to seek possession and permanent injunction against the defendants, and in particular, defendant No.3/ Smt. Saroj Yadav – the appellant herein. Defendant No.1 was stated to be the original owner of the suit property, which was described as a plot of 190 sq. Yards out of Khasra No.1577, No.701-1/9 Sangam Vihar, situated in the revenue estate of village Tughlakabad, Delhi. Defendant No.2/ Sh. Charanjit was stated to be the attorney of the original owner, who had executed the agreement to sell, power of attorney, etc. in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.3 was impleaded as the person in occupation of the suit property and against whom the relief was directed.
5. The case of the plaintiff was that she had purchased the plot through defendant No.2 on 30.04.1985 against consideration of Rs.22,000/-. Defendant No.2 was claimed to be the lawful attorney of defendant No.1/ the original owner. In terms of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff claimed that she was handed over the possession of the suit property. The plaintiff alleged that in the month of June 1996, defendant No.3/ appellant and her husband threatened the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit property. Consequently, the plaintiff made a written complaint at PS – Sangam Vihar on 24.07.1996. The plaintiff then filed a suit for injunction impleading defendants No.2 & 3 and one Sh. Ravi Kumar as party defendants. At that stage, defendant No.3/ appellant had claimed to have purchased the suit property from one Sh. Ravi Kumar, s/o Sh. Bure Ram, who was claimed to be the lawful attorney of the Defendant No.2.
6. In those proceedings, the Patwari from Kalkaji was summoned, who brought the record pertaining to Khasra No.1577. He had made a statement that the suit property was situated in Khasra No.1577, and not in Khasra No.1581. This issue arose as the defendant/ appellant herein, in her documents claimed that she had purchased the land falling in Khasra No.1581 and the common predecessor-in-interest/ attorney was defendant No.2/ Sh. Charanjit. The Patwari had deposed in those proceedings that the suit property did not fall in Khasra No.1581. The plaintiff claimed that Defendant no.3 and her husband had forcibly taken away possession of the suit property in the year 1997. Since the plaintiff had not been able to establish her possession in the suit property, the said suit for injunction was dismissed.
7. Consequently, the plaintiff preferred the suit in question. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement, denying authority given by her to Defendant No.2 to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. He denied having executed the power of attorney in favour of the Defendant No. 2, or the factum of sale of the suit property for consideration of Rs.22,000/-. However, after filing the written statement, defendant No.1 stopped appearing in the suit and, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. This defence of defendant no.1 was, therefore, not substantiated. The appellant/ defendant No.3 urged that the present suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. This averment was premised on the dismissal of the earlier Suit No.604/1998, and that the judgment passed in the said suit had attained finality.
8. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
(ii) Wheth
