SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 2538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
J.R. MIDHA, J.
RAM SINGH & ANR. - Appellants
Versus
SOHINDER SINGH BEDI - Respondent
R.F.A. No.138 of 2005
Decided On : 25-07-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.N. Kumar, K.B. Soni, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Kawaljit Kochar, Ms. Vasundhra Singh, Mr. Shreyas Mehrotra, Advocates.

Headnote:

possession - property dispute - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 54, Indian Evidence Act, Section 65, Indian Contract Act, Section 29, Code of Civil Procedure, Order XLI Rule 27] - The plaintiff claimed ownership of plot No.93, measuring 210 sq. yds., and sought possession from the defendants. The defendants claimed ownership of property No.226-B/6, adjacent to plot No.93. The court found the plaintiff to be the owner of plot No.93 based on the registered sale deed. The defendants' agreement to sell was deemed void for uncertainty and lack of title description. The court directed a fresh demarcation of plot No.93 by the Revenue Authorities to determine the true boundaries and ownership.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff claimed ownership of plot No.93, measuring 210 sq. yds., and sought possession from the defendants. The defendants claimed ownership of property No.226-B/6, adjacent to plot No.93. The court found the plaintiff to be the owner of plot No.93 based on the registered sale deed. The defendants' agreement to sell was deemed void for uncertainty and lack of title description. The court directed a fresh demarcation of plot No.93 by the Revenue Authorities to determine the true boundaries and ownership.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the plaintiff to be the owner of plot No.93 based on the registered sale deed. The defendants' agreement to sell was deemed void for uncertainty and lack of title description. The court directed a fresh demarcation of plot No.93 by the Revenue Authorities to determine the true boundaries and ownership.

Issues: The main issues were the ownership and possession of plot No.93 and property No.226-B/6, the validity of the defendants' agreement to sell, and the need for a fresh demarcation to determine the true boundaries and ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the validity of the registered sale deed, the voidness of the defendants' agreement to sell, and the need for a fresh demarcation to determine the true boundaries and ownership.

Final Decision: The court directed a fresh demarcation of plot No.93 by the Revenue Authorities to determine the true boundaries and ownership.

ORDER :

1. The appellants have challenged the decree for possession of property bearing No.93 measuring 210 sq. yds., Prakash Mohalla, Sant Nagar Extension, Village Garhi, Jharia Maria, New Delhi. For the sake of convenience, the appellants and the respondent are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court as ‘the defendants’ and ‘the plaintiff’ respectively.

2. Plaintiff’s case

2.1. The plaintiff is the owner of plot No.93 measuring 210 sq. yds., Prakash Mohalla, Sant Nagar Extension, Village Garhi, Jharia Maria, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”, having purchased the same from Bhagat Singh vide registered sale deed dated 23rd February, 1960. The plaintiff received the possession of the suit property from the previous owner at the time of the sale deed.

2.2. On 3rd July, 1974, the plaintiff visited the suit property and found Bhagat Singh and some other persons raising a wall on the suit property whereupon the plaintiff stopped them from raising the wall with the help of the police.

2.3. On 24th September, 1974, the plaintiff got the suit property demarcated by Girdawar Kanungo along with Patwari under the order of Tehsildar, Mehrauli.

2.4. In November 1974, the plaintiff again visited the suit property and found the defendants in illegal occupation.

2.5. On 22nd December, 1982, the plaintiff instituted the suit for possession against the defendants.

3. Defendant’s case

3.1. The defendants are owners in possession of property bearing No.226-B/6, Prakash Mohalla, Sant Nagar Extension, Village Garhi, Jharia Maria, New Delhi having purchased the same along with construction thereon from Bhagat Singh vide agreement dated 18th July, 1974. At the time of purchase in 1974, property No.226-B/6 was built up and Bhagat Singh was residing there and paying House Tax.

3.2. Plot No.93 being claimed by the plaintiff is adjacent to the defendants’ property No.226-B/6, Prakash Mohalla, Sant Nagar Extension, Village Garhi, Jharia Maria, New Delhi.

3.3. Plot No.93 being claimed by the plaintiff is in occupation of the Gurudwara which was built 25 years back.

4. Issues

The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 29th July, 2002:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the plot No.93, Prakash Mohalla, Sant Nagar, New Delhi.? OPP

2. Whether plot No.93 and municipal No. 226-B/6, Prakash Mohalla, Sant Nagar, New Delhi are numbers of distinct and separate properties? OPD

3. Whether the defendants are trespassers in Plot No.93, Prakash Mohalla, Sant Nagar, New Delhi?OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of Plot No.93, Prakash Mohalla, Sant Nagar, New Delhi?OPP

5. Relief.”

5. Plaintiff’s evidence

5.1. The plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and deposed that he purchased plot No.93, measuring 210 sq. yds., Prakash Mohalla, Sant Nagar Extension, Village Garhi, Jharia Maria, New Delhi vide registered sale deed Ex.PW-2/1 from Bhagat Singh and received the possession at the time of sale deed. PW-3 proved the site plan Ex.PW-3/1. PW-3 deposed having visited the suit property in 1974 and saw the defendants trying to raise a wall whereupon he informed the police who dissuaded the defendant’s attempt. PW-3 proved the copy of the complaint as Ex.PW-3/2. PW-3 further deposed that he got the suit plot demarcated from patwari and kanoongo in 1974. The certified copy of the demarcation report was marked as Mark A. PW-3 deposed that the defendants illegally encroached upon the suit property. In cross-examination, PW-3 denied that the Gurudwara had been constructed on the suit plot.

5.2. PW-2 produced the official record containing the registered sale deed dated 11th May, 1959 executed by Bhagat Singh in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and proved the sale deed as Ex.PW-2/1.

5.3. PW-4, President of Shree Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Prakash Mohalla, Garhi, deposed that Gurudwara Singh S





















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top