The main legal point established is that transfer of property must comply with the law as prescribed in the Transfer of Property Act, Stamp Act, and Registration Act.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 24th December, 2016 in RCA No.13/2016 (ID No.DLSE-01-000398-2014) of the Court of Additional District Judge-06 (South-East)] partly allowing the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree [dated 26th April, 2014 in Civil Suit No.580/2014 (Case ID No.02406C0272112011) of the Court of Civil Judge-01 (South)] of dismissal of suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of possession of shop bearing No.9, Block A, Kalkaji Mandir, New Delhi and for rendition of accounts, damages and permanent injunction. The First Appellate Court has held the respondent/plaintiff to be entitled only to a decree for possession and held the respondent/plaintiff to be disentitled to any of the other reliefs.

2. This appeal came up first before this Court on 21st April, 2017, when without recording any satisfaction that the same entails any substantial question of law and without framing any substantial question of law, notice thereof was ordered to be issued and operation of the impugned judgment and decree stayed.

3. Vide subsequent order dated 8th December, 2017 the appeal was ordered to be listed on 16th March, 2018 for final disposal. None appeared for the appellant on 16th March, 2018. However, instead of dismissing the appeal in default, in the interest of justice, the appeal was posted for 14th September, 2018.

4. On 14th September, 2018, the appellant appeared in person and on enquiry about the whereabouts of his advocate stated that he had met his advocate in his Chamber. The appellant however, inspite of enquiry did not state that the advocate will be coming to the Court to argue the appeal or not. Observing that the appellant, after obtaining stay of execution of the decree against him, cannot indulge in such conduct and further observing that even as per dicta of the Supreme Court in Surat Singh Vs. Siri Bhagwan (2018) 4 SCC 562 and Vijay Arjun Bhagat Vs. Nana Laxman Takire 2018 SCC OnLine SC 518 notice of Regular Second Appeal cannot be issued, without framing any substantial question of law, the appeal on 14th September, 2018 was dismissed for non-prosecution.

5. The appellant has filed CM No.39156/2018 for restoration of the appeal and the counsel for the appellant appears today and has been asked to satisfy this Court that the appeal raises a substantial question of law.

6. The counsel for the appellant has been heard and the copies of the Suit Court record perused.

7. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading (i) that he was allowed tehbazari by Mandir Sri Kalkaji in respect of Shop N.09, Block-A, Kalkaji Mandir, Kalkaji, New Delhi and was doing petty business of pooja path goods/articles therefrom and depositing the requisite tehbazari with respect to the shop and paying electricity charges of the shop; (ii) that on 6th July, 2010, the respondent/plaintiff granted permission to the appellant/defendant, who is the brother of the father of the respondent/plaintiff, to look after the work in the said shop in the absence of the respondent/plaintiff; and, (iii) the appellant/defendant however, though took over the business from the said shop but did not account therefor to the respondent/plaintiff and when called upon to vacate the shop, did not do so. Hence, the suit for recovery of possession of the shop and for rendition of accounts of earnings from the said shop.

8. The appellant/defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement pleading (i) that the respondent/plaintiff, besides the subject shop, was owner of two more shops in the same area of Kalkaji Temple; (ii) the appellant/defendant had a son who was working in the shop aforesaid of the respondent/plaintiff for five years; (iii) that the younger brother of the respondent/plaintiff, on 1st July, 2010, killed the said son of the appellant