The need for concrete evidence to prove property damage and the insufficiency of self-serving statements in establishing legal claims.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 22.11.2016 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking the relief of damages of Rs.10 lakhs against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and his neighbour//respondent no.2/defendant no.2 on the cause of action that illegal constructions have been made by the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 on her plot alongwith the builder/respondent no. 1/defendant no.1. Trial court has dismissed the suit by inter alia holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove any damages caused to his property, and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of plot no.C-68, East of Kailash, New Delhi. As per the plaintiff, the respondents no.1 and 2/defendants no.1 and 2, in connivance with the respondent no.3/defendant no.3/municipal corporation, built a basement and structure in plot no. C-67, East of Kailash, New Delhi, in gross violation of the building Bye Laws. As per the appellant/plaintiff, respondents no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 did not take adequate fire precautions as required under the Bye Laws and also did not make the basement water proof. Respondents no.1 and 2/Defendants no.1 and 2 are also alleged to have built a verandah or a raised platform in violation of the building Bye Laws, therefore taking away the privacy of the appellant/plaintiff. It was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that the structure constructed by the respondents no.1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 was highly dangerous and there is a threat to the appellant's/plaintiff's building as construction of respondents no.1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 was adjoining to the house of the appellant/plaintiff. Appellant/plaintiff is pleaded to have filed a criminal case for damages against the defendants which was pending in the concerned criminal court. Suit was therefore prayed for being decreed for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as damages.

3. The suit was contested by respondent no.1/ defendant no.1 and respondent no.3/defendant no.3. Respondent no.2/ Defendant no.2 was proceeded ex parte. It was the case of the contesting defendants that due sanctions were obtained and only thereafter the building was constructed. Further, any minor deviations were also rectified and brought in conformity with the Bye Laws, and therefore, proceedings against the respondents no.1 and 2/defendants no.1 and 2 were dropped by the Municipal Corporation vide Order dated 22.05.1995. Building plans were sanctioned vide File No. 647/B/92 dated 03.01.1992. For rectifying the defects in the building construction and to bring the building in conformity with the Bye Laws, the compounding fee of Rs.59,502/- was deposited by the owner/builder. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.

4. After the pleadings were complete, the trial court framed issues and parties led evidence. These aspects are recorded in paras 7 to 9 of the impugned judgment and these paras read as under:-

“7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 15.02.2010:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs.10 lakhs as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as no notice u/s 477 and 478 of DMC Act has been issued? OPD 3

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed material fact from this court? OPD

4. Whether there is no cause of action against defendants as alleged? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

6. Relief.

8. In order to prove plaintiffs' case, plaintiffs examined Sh. Amarjeet Singh as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 wherein he relied upon documents i.e. site plan Ex. PW-1/A, certified copy of le