Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
JAI SINGH THR LRS - Appellant
Versus
HARBANS SINGH THR LRS - Respondent
RSA 129 of 2009
Decided on : 14-07-2016
POSSESSION - PROPERTY DISPUTE - Delhi Land Reforms Act - Indian Evidence Act - Sale Deed - Demarcation Report - Total Station Method - Possession and Title - Mesne Profits - Jurisdiction - Limitation - Antiquity of Document - Concurrent Findings
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits, and permanent injunction with respect to a property in New Delhi, alleging that the appellants/defendants had forcibly occupied the property without any right, title, or interest. The suit property was claimed to have been purchased by the respondent/plaintiff by way of a sale deed dated 16.02.1967. The appellants/defendants contested the suit, raising objections regarding jurisdiction, ownership, and possession of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court decreed the suit, finding it properly valued and not barred under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It held that the suit was within the period of limitation and the sale deed was duly proved. The First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and directed a fresh demarcation report, which identified the suit property in a different Khasra. The Court held that the respondent/plaintiff had proved ownership and possession, and the appellants/defendants failed to establish a better title or possession prior to 1982. The Court awarded mesne profits and decreed possession to the extent described in the sale deed.
Issues: Jurisdiction, ownership, possession, valuation of suit, limitation, demarcation and identification of suit property, title and possession of appellants/defendants, mesne profits, and relief beyond prayer.
Ratio Decidendi: The sale deed, being a document of antiquity, carried a legal presumption as to its genuineness. The demarcation report prepared by the Total Station Method was the most accurate method for identifying the suit property in a built-up area. The respondent/plaintiff had duly proved ownership and possession, while the appellants/defendants failed to establish a better title or possession prior to 1982. The relief granted was considered reasonable and sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The present second appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. The challenge in the present second appeal by the appellants/defendants is against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2008 passed in suit no.25/1987 preferred by the respondent/plaintiff, Harbans Singh Bedi for recovery of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction with respect to property bearing No.WZ-159, Gujar Market, Tihar Village, New Delhi (hereinafter called the suit property) whereby the suit was decreed as well as against the judgment dated 01.10.2009 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi in RCA No.6/2008 affirming and upholding the judgment and decree of the Trial court but with the modification that the property was found to be in Khasra No.1576 and not in 1573 as was held by the Trial Court or 1575 as was claimed by the appellants/defendants.
2. The respondent/plaintiff, claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property measuring 220 sq.yards, having purchased the same by way of a sale deed dated 16.02.1967, alleged that the appellants/defendants have forcibly occupied the suit property without having any right, title or interest in it and appellant/defendant No.1, Jai Singh sub divided the aforesaid property into eight units which were let out to the other defendants/respondents and rent was collected from the other defendants/respondents by respondent/defendant No.1. The aforesaid trespass over the property was stated to have been made sometimes around 1982. The respondent/plaintiff sent notices to the defendants requesting them to hand over the possession of the suit property but to no avail. Constrained, suit no.25/1987 was filed for a decree of possession of the suit property, mesne profits and for injuncting defendant Nos.2 to 6 from paying rent to defendant No.1 and for injuncting defendant No.1 in creating any charge with respect to the suit property.
3. During the trial, original defendant Nos.2 & 4 were deleted whereas defendant Nos.3-6 were proceeded ex-parte. The suit was primarily contested by appellant/defendant No.1.
4. Preliminary objections were raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Court, pecuniary or otherwise; the respondent/plaintiff not being the owner of the suit property and, therefore, never been in possession; the defendant being the sole owner of the suit property (WZ-159A) and the other defendants being the tenants of defendant No.1. The written statement of the other defendants namely 2, 4, 5 & 6 were similar in contents and terms.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court, vide order dated 23.02.1995 framed the following issues:-
i. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
ii. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit being barred by provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPD
iii. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP
iv. Whether the defendant no.1 is the owner of the suit property, as alleged? OPD
v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession? OPP
vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages. If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
vii. Relief.
6. Ten (10) witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff and fourteen (14) witnesses stepped in the witness box on behalf of the appellants/defendant.
7. The preliminary objections with regard to the plaint not being in terms of Order 7 Rule 1(e) CPC and barred by limitation was rejected by the Trial Court holding that though the property was purchased by way of a sale deed in the year 1967 but the defendants are alleged to have trespassed over the property in the year 1982, for vacation of which, notices were issued on 16.07.1986 and 18.11.1986 through registered posts and the suit having been filed on 14.01.1987, the suit was well within the period of limitation and it matters not if it took almost about five years for the respondent/plaintiff
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
