Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Chanchal Devi - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority - Respondent
RSA No. 121 & 122 of 2018
Decided On : 28-08-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Nair, Mr. Avdhesh Nuniwala and Mr. Sachin, Advs.
The onus of proof lies with the party claiming ownership, and documents such as Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, and Will may not constitute documents of title. In cases involving complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, a comprehensive suit for declaration of title may be required.
Headnote:
RSA - Civil Procedure - Section 100 of CPC - [Section 100 of CPC] - The court discussed the nature of controversy and the arguments in both appeals, the ownership claims of the appellants, and the respondent's defense. The court also highlighted the onus of proof, admissibility of documents, and the requirement for a comprehensive suit for declaration of title.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed suits for permanent injunction against the respondent DDA and SHO to restrain them from demolishing their properties. The suits were based on the appellants' claims of ownership through Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, and Will. The respondent contested the suits, claiming ownership of the land and justifying the demolition.
Finding of the Court:
The Suit Court ruled in favor of the appellants, restraining the respondent from forceful dispossession. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeals, dismissing the suits of the appellants, citing the appellants' failure to prove ownership and the inadmissibility of the documents presented.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the properties, entitlement to injunction, locus standi, and the admissibility of documents. The court also addressed the onus of proof and the requirement for a comprehensive suit for declaration of title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the onus of proof on the appellants to establish ownership and the inadmissibility of documents as evidence of title. It also highlighted the need for a comprehensive suit for declaration of title when complicated questions of fact and law relating to title are involved.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, stating that they did not raise any substantial question of law.
CMs No.34762/2018 & 34763/2018 in RSA No.121/2018 & CMs No.34766/2018 & 34767/2018 in RSA No.122/2018 (all for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
RSA 121/2018 & CM No.34761/2018 (for stay) & RSA 122/2018 & CM No.34765/2018 (for stay)
3. These two Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugn the judgments and decree [both dated 31st May, 2018 in RCA No.01/2017 and RCA No.56/2016, both of the Court of Senior Civil Judge (North-West)] allowing the First Appeals under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the judgments and decree [both dated 17th October, 2016, in CS No.559/2014 (Case No.9578/2016) and CS No.529/2014 (Case No.9577/2016), both of the Court of Civil Judge (West)] allowing the suits filed by each of the appellant/plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant DDA and Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi from demolishing the construction of the house of each of the appellant/plaintiff and from dispossessing each of the appellant/plaintiff therefrom.
4. Though both the appeals arise from separate judgments in separate suits/appeals but the nature of controversy and the arguments in both are the same and these Regular Second Appeals have also been filed by the same counsel and on the same grounds and proposing the same substantial questions of law and have been argued as one. Thus, both the appeals are decided by this common judgment.
5. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has been heard and the copies of the relevant Suit Court records annexed to the memorandums of appeal perused.
6. The appellant/plaintiff in RSA No.121/2018 claimed to be the owner of built up pakka house bearing No.18/4, measuring 50 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No.48/4, situated in the colony of Mange Ram Park, Budh Vihar, Phase-II, in the area of Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi.
7. The appellant/plaintiff in RSA No.122/2018 claimed to be the owner of built up house bearing No.40/1D, measuring 50 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No.47/3, situated in Gali No.3, Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Part-II, in the area of Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi.
8. The suits were filed by each of the appellant/plaintiff to restrain the respondent/defendant DDA and the SHO, Police Station-Sultanpuri from causing any “further demolition/damage” to the properties aforesaid of each of the appellant/plaintiff.
9. Each of the appellant/plaintiff claimed to be the owner of their respective properties, not by virtue of any Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed/Transfer Deed or allotment made by any governmental authority, but by virtue of Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney and Will etc. which in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2012 SC 206 have been held by the Supreme Court to not constitute documents of title.
10. It was the case of each of the appellant/plaintiff that they were in possession of their respective properties since the year 2000.
11. The respondent/defendant DDA contested the suits inter alia pleading (i) that while the house of the appellant/plaintiff in RSA No.121/2018 was situated in Khasra No.47/2 (and not in Khasra No.48/4), the house of the appellant/plaintiff in RSA No.122/2018 was situated in Khasra No.47/2 (and not in Khasra No.47/3); (ii) that the land underneath the house of each of the appellant/plaintiff was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and had been placed at the disposal of the respondent/defendant DDA and was transferred to the Rohini Residential Scheme on 2nd May, 1986; (iii) that a demolition programme to remove the encroachment made by each of the appellant/plaintiff and others on the acquired land was scheduled for 18th September, 2006 and encroachments removed on the said date; (iv) that each of the appellant/plaintiff had re-encroached over the said land; (v) that the respondent/defendant DDA w
