Back
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Nathu Ram – Appellant
Versus
D. D. A – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession defined. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dda's claims regarding trespass. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. presentation of evidence and testimonies. (Para 7) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and testimonies. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's conclusion on plaintiffs' possession. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. appellate court's observations. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. arguments from both parties during appeal. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. legal principles guiding ownership proof. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - Brief Facts
1. The Plaintiffs - Mr. Surat Singh and his son - Mr. Nathu Ram/Appellant herein (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), have filed a suit for perpetual injunction before the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, being Suit No.390/2006 titled Sh. Surat Singh & Anr. v. DDA. The case of the Plaintiffs was that they have been in possession as owners of 2,500 sq. yds. of land forming part of Khasra No. 48/7 in the revenue estate of Humayunpur, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit property"), since the time of their forefathers. The Plaintiffs claim to have constructed a house bearing no. 20-B, Krishan Nagar, on a piece of land measuring 800 sq. yds. in the said Khasra. The suit property, as per the site plan exhibi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
