Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Madan Mohan Dass & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Brigadier Yellepeddy S Rao (retired) & Ors. - Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1075 of 2019, 1083 of 2019; C.M. No. 54485 of 2019, 20749 of 2020, 54786 of 2019
Decided On : 01-06-2021
The court held that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to the possession of the Suit Land. The appellants failed to prove their interest or title to the same, except that they were in possession of the same on the date of filing of the Suits. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 therefore, were able to rebut the presumption under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act and were entitled to the possession of the Suit Land.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for possession of a portion of land measuring 60' x 45' i.e. 300 Sq. yds. on the extreme western side of a larger side measuring 1067 sq. yds. in Khasra No. 27/5/2 i.e. one Bhiga and 1-1/3 biswas approx. in village Mirzapur (Palam), Delhi presently known as H.No.H-4/108/A, Mahavir Enclave, Part-I, New Delhi - 110045, (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Land') claiming as under:-
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to the possession of the Suit Land. The appellants failed to prove their interest or title to the same, except that they were in possession of the same on the date of filing of the Suits. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 therefore, were able to rebut the presumption under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act and were entitled to the possession of the Suit Land.
Issues: Whether Mrs. B. G. Lakshmi and her husband Mr. B. K. Garudachar had in the year 1987 agreed to sell the suit property to Brdg. Yellepeddy and his daughter against receipt of entire sale consideration and in part performance of the said Agreement to Sell put the said Brdg. Yellepeddy and his daughter into possession of the property? OPP Whether the said Mrs. B. G. Lakshmi and her husband Mr. B. K. Garudachar had appointed Mr. Ambuj Srivastava as their attorney and the said Mr. Ambuj Srivastava under the said attorney was entitled to sell the said property of Mrs. B. G. Lakshmi and her husband Mr. B. K. Garudachar? OPD-1.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to the possession of the Suit Land. The appellants failed to prove their interest or title to the same, except that they were in possession of the same on the date of filing of the Suits. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 therefore, were able to rebut the presumption under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act and were entitled to the possession of the Suit Land.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and directed the appellants to pay consolidated costs of Rs. Two Lakhs to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the present appeals.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. -
1. These appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment and order dated 27.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03, South-West District, in Civil Suit No. 15870/2016 titled Brigadier Yellepeddy S. Rao (Retired) & Anr. vs. Sh. Madan Mohan Das & Ors., and in Civil Suit No. 15859/16 titled Brigadier Yellepeddy S. Rao (Retired) & Anr. vs. M/s Dass Properties and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
2. The first of the Suits, being Civil Suit No.15870/2016, was filed by the respondent no. 1 on 16.09.2011, in relation to portion of land measuring 60' x 45' i.e. 300 Sq. yds. on the extreme western side of a larger side measuring 1067 sq. yds. in Khasra No. 27/5/2 i.e. one Bhiga and 1-1/3 biswas approx. in village Mirzapur (Palam), Delhi, presently known as H.No.H-4/108/A, Mahavir Enclave, Part-I, New Delhi - 110045, (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Land') claiming as under:-
"a. That a land measuring 15 Bhigas 10 biswas bearing mustatil No. 16 Killa No. 26/03 (0-5). Mustatil No. 27, Killa No.6 (4-9), 5/2(3-12) and Mustatil No.28, Killa No. 1(4-16), 10/2(2-8)situated at Village Mirzapur, Delhi, was allotted to one Smt. Phullo, D/o Smt. Ghogari, R/o Village Palam, Delhi. That Smt. Phullo, during the lifetime of her mother, had been declared as "BHUMIDAR" of the said land under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954-55.
b. That abovesaid Smt. Phullo had sold the abovesaid land vide sale deed dated 22/11/1973, sale deed bearing No. 4032 at Sub-Registrar II, Delhi to one Major General Harkesh Chander Gahlaut, S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh residing at D-I/2, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-63.
c. That thereafter Major General Harkesh Chander Gahlaut sold the abovesaid land to one Sh. Mohar Singh S/o Sh. Chander Singh, R/o B80, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi - 110008, by virtue of a sale deed executed at Sub-Registrar II, Delhi.
d. That on 08/06/1981 a sale deed was executed by one Sh. Mohar Singh S/o Sh. Chander Singh, R/o B-80, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi- 110008, in respect to 1067sq. yds. i.e. one Bhiga and 1-1/3 biswas approx. in Khasra No.27/5/2 out of the total agriculture land of 15 bhigas 10 biswas in favour of Sh. B.K. Garudachar, S/o Sh. B.V. Krishna lyengar and Smt. B.G. Lakshmi, W/o Sh. B.K. Garudachar, both residing at A-83, Defence Colony for a total consideration of Rs. 16,000/-. A copy of sale deed dated 08/06/1981 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure P-2.
e. That thereafter on 19/07/1987 an agreement of sale was entered between the Plaintiff and Sh. B.K. Garudachar and Smt. B.G. Lakshmi for a consideration amount of Rs. 40,000/- in respect to the suit property i.e. portion of land measuring 60' x 45' i.e. 300 Sq. yds. on the extreme western side of a larger side measuring 1067 sq. yds. in Khasra No. 27/5/2 i.e. one Bhiga and 1-1/3 biswas approx. in village Mirzapur (Palam), Delhi presently known as Mahavir Enclave. That the said consideration amount was paid by the Plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement of sale and the plaintiff was handed over the physical possession of the suit property. A copy of the agreement of sale dated 19/07/1987 is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3. A copy of the receipt for an amount of Rs.40,000/- is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-4.
f. That thereafter confirming the above said agreement of sale, a registered a general power of attorney bearing No.144/87.88 dated 05/08/1987 was executed by Sh. B.K. Garudachar and Smt. B.G. Lakshmi in favour of the Plaintiff in respect to a portion of land measuring 60' x 45' i.e. 300 Sq. yds. on the extreme western side of a larger side measuring 1067sq. yds. in Khasra No.27/5/2 i.e. one Bhiga and 1-1/3 biswas approx. in village Mirzapur (Palam), Delhi which is the suit property of the present suit. A copy of general power of attorney dated 05/08/1987 bearing No. 144/87.88 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure P-5.
g. That soon after the execution of the general power of attorney, the plaintiff got busy in Bo
Civil Law – Civil Suit - Unregistered agreement to sell – Maintainability of suit - When and from whom plaintiff came into lawful possession of property, and entitlement of plaintiff to restoration o....
Civil Law - Civil Suit - Seeks rejection of plaint - Restoration of possession - When and from whom plaintiff came into lawful possession of the property, and entitlement of plaintiff to restoration ....
General Power of Attorney ceases upon the death of the principal, invalidating any subsequent sale deeds executed without the consent of all necessary parties.
The court held that a suit for declaration of ownership of property is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if the plaintiff is able to prove that he/she was not dispossessed of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, which focuses on the lower court's jurisdiction and not....
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
