Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Krishan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
RFA No.661 of 2017
Decided on : 08-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate
Important Point – Adverse possession commences in a wrongful possession and is maintained against a correct title of true owner.
Headnote:Adverse Possession – Government Land – Adverse possession commences in a wrongful possession and is maintained against a correct title of true owner – Courts have demanded unimpeachable pleadings and evidence before ownership by adverse possession is held to be established by a litigant – Mere self – serving oral evidence being deposition of appellant/plaintiff cannot help appellant/plaintiff to prove his claim of adverse possession inasmuch as adverse possession has to be proved essentially through documentary evidence and courts cannot divest ownership of a true owner, that too being public land, on the basis of oral evidence by which appellant/plaintiff claims to be the owner by means of adverse possession for a period not less than 30 years – Injunction could not be granted in favour of a trespasser and against true owner – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14, 15, 18, 19, and 22)
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
C.M. Nos. 28321/2017 (for filing documents), 28322/2017 (for early hearing) & 28323/2017 (for exemption)
1. The applications for exemption, early hearing and taking on record the documents which form part of the trial court record are allowed.
C.M.s stand disposed of.
RFA No.661/2017
2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.7.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff whereby the appellant/plaintiff had sought an injunction against dispossession from 5 bighas and 2 biswas of land (5100 sq. yds.) forming part of Khasra no.1531, Village Aliganj, New Delhi and which adjoins Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The only basis of claim for injunction is the claim of the appellant/plaintiff to be in adverse possession of the suit land as against the respondents/defendants/Union of India/DDA. Admittedly the present owner of the property is said to be respondent no.2/DDA and which is the successor of the original owner being the respondent no.1/Union of India.
3. The facts and averments with respect to claim of the appellant/plaintiff to entitlement of the suit land and injunction against the dispossession on the basis of adverse possession is reflected in para 5 of the impugned judgment dated 17.7.2017. The case of adverse possession as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff is as per paras 4 and 10(e) of the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff in the trial court with other related paras.
4. The appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit seeking injunction against being dispossessed from the suit land being 5 bighas and 2 biswas of land (5100 sq. yds.) forming part of Khasra no.1531, Village Aliganj, New Delhi and the relief clause of the plaint reads as under:-
“ PRAYER
It is therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the submissions made above, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their employees, agents and representatives etc. from dispossessing the plaintiff or interfering into the peaceful possession of the suit property comprising of 5 bighas 2 biswas forming part of khasra no.1531 of the revenue estate of village Aliganj, New Delhi, shown in Red Colour in Zonal Plan No.D-19, Annexure A & B.
Any other relief which the plaintiff may be found to be entitled be also granted.
It is prayed accordingly.”
5. As per the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff (and which starts from page 82 of the paper book of this appeal) it is seen that the appellant/plaintiff pleads that he was displaced from West Pakistan and he settled in the year 1954 over the suit land which is adjoining to Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the appellant/plaintiff initially did the poultry business in the suit land and thereafter started a full fledged nursery on the suit land in the name of M/s Pal Nursery. In para 4 of the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff pleads to be the owner of the land as well as of the built up portion, on account of adverse possession. It is further pleaded that built up portion is assessed to house tax since the year 1976. The built up portion is said to be a residential house as also a servant quarter. The plaint further pleads that the subject land has been transferred by the Union of India to the defendant and which is the defendant is though not specified in the plaint, it means DDA. The plaint further pleads that there was an attempt to illegally dispossess the appellant/plaintiff from the suit land by physical force and demolition being carried out of the built up portion and which cannot be done by the respondents/defendants being the Union of India and the DDA. The appellant/plaintiff claimed as per para 10(c) of the plaint that the appellant/plaintiff is in uninterrupte
