Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
RAM NIWAS - Appellant
Versus
O.P.KHANNA (DECD.) THRU LRS & ORS - Respondents
RFA No. 669 of 2018
Decided on : 17-08-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Khatri, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Vandana Aneja and Ms. Nisha Sharma, Advocates.
The main legal point established is that the evidence of ownership and possession, along with the defendant's failure to produce any ownership documents, led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Headnote:
CPC - Property Dispute - 96 of CPC - [Sale Deed, ST-35 Forms, Agreements, Will] - The court analyzed the ownership and possession of the suit property based on the sale deed, ST-35 forms, and other documents. The defendant's inconsistent claims and failure to produce any ownership documents led to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of a property, while the defendant contested the ownership and claimed possession for over 15 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the property based on the evidence of sale deed, ST-35 forms, and other documents. The defendant's inconsistent claims and failure to produce any ownership documents led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: Ownership and possession of the suit property, entitlement to reliefs, permissive possession by the defendant, relief
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of sale deed, ST-35 forms, and other documents to determine ownership and possession. The defendant's inconsistent claims and failure to produce any ownership documents influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.3 lacs to be paid to the respondents/plaintiffs within six weeks.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Caveat No. 737/2018
Counsel appears for the caveator. Caveat accordingly stands discharged.
CM No. 32889/2018(Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
RFA No.669/2018 & CM No.32888/2018(stay)
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 5.7.2018 by which trial court has decreed the suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs with respect to the suit property show in site plan Ex.PW1/K and totalling to an area of 378.80 sq. yards. Original plaintiff no.1 Sh. O.P. Khanna expired pendente lite and he was/is thereafter represented by his legal heirs who are respondent nos.1(a) to (c) in this appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the subject suit pleading that Sh. O.P. Khanna (original plaintiff no. 1) and Sh. Baij Nath Khanna (plaintiff no. 2) are brothers and plaintiff no.3/respondent no.3 is the son of Sh. Baij Nath Khanna. All the three plaintiffs/respondents have purchased the suit property admeasuring 350 sq. yds falling in K.No. 70/1/1, Mangolpur Kalan Village, Delhi by means of a registered Sale Deed dated 13.6.1984. Respondents/plaintiffs were pleaded to be in possession of the suit property after purchase of the same from the seller/vendor Sh. Tara Chand. It was further pleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs that though the Sale Deed dated 13.6.1984 in their favours was with respect to 350 sq. yds, but on the spot it transpired that there was an additional area of 28.8 sq. yds, and therefore with respect to this additional area on 20.7.1985, in favour of the plaintiff no.3/respondent no.3 further set of documents being Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will etc were executed. Respondents/plaintiffs have also pleaded that they carried on business from the suit premises under the name and style of Khanna Footwear and which business was assessed to sales tax with the Delhi Sales Tax Authority with sales tax being paid and ST-I forms being issued under the concerned Sales Tax Act. On account of the old age of the deceased plaintiff no.1-Sh. O.P.Khanna, the business was closed, and suit property was kept locked with the same being visited on few occasions in a year by respondents/plaintiffs or their family members. Appellant/defendant was doing the business of wooden doors and other ancillary wood work in front of the suit property, on the other side of the road, in the name and style of Jai Wood Works. The property of the appellant/defendant was demolished by the concerned authorities being unauthorised and hence the appellant/defendant requested the respondents/plaintiffs to keep the goods of the appellant/defendant temporarily in the rear portion of the suit property and which was open to the sky, the respondents/plaintiffs permitted the same. No rent or license fee was charged by the respondents/plaintiffs from the appellant/defendant. The suit property however remained in the lock and key of late respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 Sh. O.P.Khanna. Appellant/defendant turned dishonest and on being asked to remove his goods he refused to remove the goods and thereafter when the son-in-law of Sh. O.P.Khanna namely Sh. Arun Kathuria visited the spot, the appellant/defendant fought with him and injured him resulting in a complaint being lodged with the police station on 30.3.2004 and on medical examination of Sh. Arun Kathuria at B.S.A.Hospital, Rohini, Delhi on 30.3.2004 the Doctor found injuries on the person of Sh. Arun Kathuria. It may be noted that the respondents/plaintiffs have registered a case under FIR No. 396/2004 at Police Station Rohini under Sections 448, 325, 34 IPC. It is further pleaded that on 2.4.2004, the daughter and wife of plaintiff no.1 Sh. O.P.Khanna visited the spot and the appellant/defendant with other persons objected to the sa
