IMPORTANT POINT
The case emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims in property disputes and highlights the application of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act in determining the validity of property rights.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. - This is a second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The dispute relates to a property admeasuring 50 sq. yds. situated at E-92, Khasra No.143/18/2, 19/20/22, in Village Dichaon Kalan, Hanuman Park, New Delhi (hereinafter the "suit property").

2. The present appellant Nirankar was Plaintiff 1 before the learned Administrative Civil Judge (the learned ACJ) in CS No.38/2017 and Appellant 1 in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in Regular Civil Appeal 41/2020. The respondents were the defendants before the learned ACJ and the respondents before the learned ADJ. Nirankar and Appellant 1 Pawansut are brothers.

3. The appellants' suit having been dismissed, and the first appeal preferred against the dismissal having also been rejected, the appellants have invoked the jurisdiction vested in this Court by Section 100 of the CPC.

4. In the plaint, Nirankar, as the plaintiff, claimed to have purchased the suit property from one Balihari on 5 April 2006 along with Defendant 1 Pawansut. Nirankar's case was that, though the sale documents had been executed in the name of Pawansut, the property had been jointly purchased by Nirankar and Pawansut, with each paying Rs. 35,000/- towards consideration for the purchase of the property, which was purchased for a total price of Rs. 70,000/-.

5. It was alleged in the plaint that, on 25 November 2016, the defendants called upon the plaintiffs to vacate the suit property and that the demand was predicated on a settlement dated 3 September 2016, whereby the ancestral property of the parties had been partitioned and Pawansut had relinquished his share in the ancestral property in favour of Nirankar. Nirankar denied the settlement.

6. It was further alleged in the plaint that, on 3 December 2016, the defendants again tried to forcibly dispossess Nirankar from the suit property. It was also alleged that Pawansut had forcibly appropriated the documents relating to the said property from Nirankar and had refused to return them.

7. It was in these circumstances that CS 38/2017 was instituted by the plaintiffs (Nirankar and his wife Saroj) against the defendants (Pawansut and his wife Ranjana Devi). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that Nirankar was half owner of the suit property, as well as permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs.

8. Various issues were framed by the learned ACJ, to which it is not necessary to advert for the purpose of this order.

9. In the written statement, the defendants disputed Nirankar's title in the suit property. Defendant 1 Pawansut contended that the suit property had been purchased by him, of which he was the sole owner, and that he had permitted Nirankar to stay in the suit property as a licensee, which permission he had later revoked.

10. The learned ACJ held, in his judgment dated 26 February 2020 that Nirankar had failed to prove any right in respect of the suit property. Nirankar placed reliance on two receipts, which are the documents on which Mr. Awadesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance before this Court as well. The first receipt does not bear any date but was stated to have been executed contemporaneously with the transfer of the property, for Rs. 35,000/-. The second receipt, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/6, was of 2014. The first receipt was never exhibited in the proceedings and was only marked as Mark A. Apropos the contention of the plaintiff that he had titular rights in the suit property, the learned ACJ has held, in paras 13 to 16 of his judgement dated 26 February 2020, thus:

"13. The plaintiff no. 1 has claimed 1/2 share in the suit property on the ground that he had paid Rs 35000/- out of total consideration amount of Rs 70,000/-. Now, since the entire claim of plaintiffs is based on the alleged 50% payment, therefore, issue no. 7 i.e. whether