The main legal point established is the significance of the perpetual lease deed and evidence of expenses for construction in determining ownership of the property.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the suit for recovery, possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been decreed in his favour, the appellant/defendant No.1 has filed the present appeal.

2. The facts narrated in the plaint filed before the Court below are that a suit was filed before the Trial Court by respondent No.1/plaintiff for recovery, possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property No.ED-48, Tagore Garden, New Delhi measuring 149.33 square yards as a leasehold property under the perpetual lease deed executed by the President of India in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 registered on 31.01.1966. The respondent No.1/plaintiff raised a construction over the suit property after obtaining necessary sanction from the competent authority. Upon completion of the house, all the family members started living in the said house along with the appellant/defendant No.1, who was allowed to take shelter in the suit premises. The father of the parties to the suit died on 10.08.1980 and thereafter due to the alleged behavior of the appellant/defendant No.1, he was kicked out of the house in 1986 and subsequently acquired a house at Moti Nagar, New Delhi, thus, shifting his residence along with family members from the suit property. The appellant/defendant No.1 subsequently acquired another accommodation at GH1/318, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and both these houses were in possession of the appellant/defendant No.1. It is further alleged that in February, 1993 the plaintiff/respondent No.1 found that the appellant/defendant No.1 was residing in the suit property and asked respondent No.2 as to who gave permission to the appellant, wherein he was informed that the appellant was permitted to stay for a short period during the renovation of his own house and would leave once the same was over. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has alleged that various requests were made to the appellant to vacate the house which were not adhered to and thus a notice dated 30.06.1995 was served upon him and subsequently the present suit was filed.

3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant/defendant No.1, it has been stated that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was not the owner of the suit premises and the allotment of the plot bearing no.ED-48, Tagore Garden, New Delhi on which the suit property was constructed, was actually done by DDA in the name of Sneh Lata, the oldest child of Kashmiri Lal, the father of the parties since 1963-64 which was later on transferred in the name of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 at the time of marriage of Sneh Lata, and thus it was only a benami transaction and the plaintiff was not the owner of the property. It was further averred in the pleading of the defendant No.1 that he is in possession of the suit premises uninterruptedly since its construction in 1965-66 and had become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession according to the provisions of the law. It was also countered on the ground that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, as all the four sisters and two brothers of the plaintiff who were legal heirs of the father were not made parties to the suit.

4. Replications to the written statements were filed on behalf of the defendants. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court below :

(1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP.

(2) Whether the defendant is in the unauthorized occupation of the suit property? OPP.

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages as explained? OPP.

(4) Whether the defendant is the co-owner of the property as objection raised in para 5 of the written statement? OPD.

(5) Whether the defendant has become the owner of the property by way of adverse possession? OPD.

(6) Whether the plaintiff has l