Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
SUNITA - Appellant
Versus
AMAR SINGH - Respondent
RSA 207 of 2016
Decided on : 25-01-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Abdul Sattar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.Nitin Sharma, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of valid and reliable documentation in establishing ownership and possession of property.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Ownership - Evidence Act, Section 8 - Notary Act, Section 8 - Civil Procedure Code, Order XLI Rule 27 - [GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipts] - The court dismissed the appellant's claim of ownership and possession of the property based on unregistered and suspicious documents. The court found discrepancies and lack of evidence in the documents presented, and concluded that the appellant failed to establish her ownership and possession of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit seeking possession of a property based on unregistered documents. The respondent contested the suit, denying trespass and claiming ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove ownership and possession of the property based on the presented documents. The court dismissed the appellant's claim.
Issues: Ownership, Possession, Validity of Documents, Discrepancies in Evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's claim of ownership and possession was dismissed due to discrepancies and lack of evidence in the presented documents.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
RSA 207/2016 & CM No.3147/2017
1. The challenge by means of this Regular Second Appeal is to the concurrent judgments dated 26th September, 2005 passed by the learned Trial Court and dated 26th April, 2016 passed by the First Appellate Court by which the civil suit No. 287/03/99 filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking possession of property bearing Plot No.537 in Khasra No.1601, situated at Sangam Vihar, Gali No.12, Block G, New Delhi, measuring 150 sq. yds. has been dismissed.
2. The appellant/plaintiff is claiming her ownership in respect of the above plot on the basis of documents i.e. unregistered General Power of Attorney Ex.PW-1/1, Agreement to Sell Ex.PW1/2, Affidavit Ex.PW1/3 and Receipt Ex.PW-1/4 executed in her favour by Sh.Ram Avadh Pandey on 13th January, 1994 for sale consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the respondent/defendant had earlier (no date, month or year is mentioned in the plaint) attempted to commit trespass on her property but due to police intervention the possession was restored to her. The appellant had to visit her sister in Gorakhpur, U.P. to participate in the marriage of her daughter where she stayed for 15 days. On her return from Gorakhpur on 20th April, 1997, she found her property being trespassed by the respondent/defendant and since then he is living there illegally. She had lodged a complaint with Police Station, Okhla on 22nd April, 1997 and despite the fact that she is having title over the property nothing has been done by the police to restore the possession to her. The respondent/defendant has filed a civil suit No.511/1997 seeking permanent injunction against her which was pending trial.
3. The appellant/plaintiff has also filed a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against the defendant for his illegal and unauthorized occupation in the suit property by him which was also pending disposal before the SDM, Kalkaji. She has also pleaded that Sh.Ram Avadh Pandey from whom she purchased the suit property, is a practicing advocate at Patiala House Court. The respondent/defendant had fabricated the documents with regard to the suit property in his name whereas she is the actual owner. She prayed for decree for possession in respect of the suit property as per site plan annexed with the plaint.
4. The suit was contested by the respondent/defendant taking the following pleas:-
(i) The suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is a counter blast to the suit filed by him seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.
(ii) The suit property which actually bears the No.G-12/580, Sangam Vihar has been referred to as G-12/537, Sangam Vihar by the appellant/plaintiff.
(iii) He has never committed trespass on the suit property or ever evicted with the assistance of the local police. The appellant/plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. He denied that when the appellant/plaintiff had gone to Gorakhpur, U.P. to attend wedding in her family, he committed trespass in the suit property.
(iv) He claimed himself to be absolute owner in possession of the suit property and pleaded that Sh.Ram Avadh Pandey had no right vested in the said property which he could transfer to the appellant/plaintiff.
5. After considering the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court settled the following issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is rightful owner of the property in question? OPP
(ii) Whether the defendant is a trespasser in the property in question?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property?
(iv) Relief
6. In respect of the issue No.(i) and (ii), learned Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that the suit for possession is based on title and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that she was ever in possession of the suit property or it was trespassed in her absence. Her claim based on Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 to be owner of the suit property was rejected by the learned Trial Court.
7. Learned c
