The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of additional evidence in appellate proceedings and the importance of maintaining equity and justice in property disputes.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. The Appellant (Father of Respondent/Defendant) preferred present appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 passed by ADJ-02 (North-East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in suit No. 476548/15 titled "Sohan Pal Goel v. Shaleen Goel".

2. Brief facts stated are that Appellant/Plaintiff herein is father of Respondent/Defendant herein. Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit for possession against Respondent/Defendant in respect of property i.e. Shop No.1 admeasuring 8ft x 10ft on ground floor and one room admeasuring 8ft x 12ft on first floor in property bearing No. F-13, Village Gokulpur, Delhi-110094 (hereinafter called Suit Property). The said property was purchased by the Appellant/Plaintiff from his real brother Atma Ram by way of general power of attorney, agreement to sell, receipt, deed of Will, etc. on 10.12.2002 by paying sale consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Subsequently, Appellant/Plaintiff became lawful owner of the said property. The Appellant/Plaintiff was in possession of the said property since 1998 as he shared cordial relation with his brother Atma Ram, and out of love and affection Atma Ram handed over the possession to Appellant/Plaintiff. Sohan Pal Goel (Appellant herein) has two sons, younger one Shaleen Goel (Respondent herein) and elder son Vipul Kumar Goel, Appellant/Plaintiff allowed Shaleen Goel to use Suit Property.

Respondent/Defendant got married to Smt. Geetesh Goel on 09.12.2010 and thereafter both started living with Appellant/Plaintiff in rented accommodation bearing No. C-7/203, Ground Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053 till November, 2013. December, 2013 onwards Respondent/Defendant and his wife started living in the suit property as a permissive user/licensee of Appellant/Plaintiff. Thereafter, some serious disputes arose among the parties due to which Appellant/Plaintiff debarred Respondent/Defendant from his properties vide public notice published in Rashtriya Sahara dated 06.02.2014. Appellant/Plaintiff, later, to resolve the disputes divided the whole property in between his two sons to which all parties agreed by way of family settlement dated 03.07.2014, same was duly registered. However, after the division Respondent/Defendant refused the division scheme and demanded that whole property be transferred in his name. Since refusal by Respondent/Defendant, Appellant/Plaintiff transferred the remaining property too in name of his elder son on 25.07.2014 by general power of attorney in favour of his elder son, same was duly registered. Since dispute did not got resolved, Appellant/Plaintiff asked his elder son to execute two sale deed in favour of Appellant/Plaintiff, same were executed on 16.07.2014 and 05.08.2014. Subsequently, the license of the younger son was terminated by the Appellant/Plaintiff by giving a legal notice dated 30.08.2014, premises were not vacated by the Respondent/Defendant. Pursuant to aforementioned circumstances, Appellant/Plaintiff filed suit for possession, damages/mesne profits and permanent injunction against Respondent/Defendant herein.

3. Respondent/Defendant herein by his written statement has taken preliminary objection that the Appellant/Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and filing the same is abuse of process of law, plaint has not been filed with clean hands and the value of suit property is above Rs. 22 lakhs and the Court below has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Further, suit of Appellant/Plaintiff for injunction is barred by section 41 (i) of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Hence, suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of CPC.

4. The Respondent/Defendant on merit has denied that the Appellant/Plaintiff is actual and absolute owner of the area built up measuring 45 Sq. Yds out of Khasra No. 291, built on property No. F-13, Village Gokalpur, Delhi-110094. The Respondent/Defendant has further denied property belongs to Appellant/Plaintiff, however, the a