The burden of proof lies on the appellants to establish ownership and the relationship of licensor and licensee through credible evidence, failing which claims are dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 555/2020 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM APPL. 556/2020 (DELAY)

This is an application seeking condonation of 180 days delay in refilling of the appeal.

For the reason stated in the application, the delay is condoned and application stands allowed.

RSA 2/2020

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 24.12.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in RCA No. 4/2016 titled Smt. Munni Devi & Anr. vs. Shri Mahi Pal Singh. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein.

2. The appellants herein had filed the Suit bearing no. 384/2009 claiming themselves to be the owners of the property bearing no. D-599, Amar Colony, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-94 by way of an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA) and a Receipt, all dated 16.11.1989, and marked as Exhibit PW-1/3 to PW-1/5 respectively. It is further the case of the appellants that the Suit Property had been given on license for the occupation of respondent herein, who is the brother-in-law of the appellants.

3. The learned Trial Court as also the Appellate Court have dismissed the Suit of the appellants holding that the appellants were unable to prove EX PW-1/3 to EX PW-1/5. The learned Appellate Court has held that as neither the plaintiffs/appellants nor any of the attesting witnesses of the above documents had appeared as witnesses in the trial and instead only the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiffs/appellants namely Mr.Pawan Kumar had appeared as a witness, the said documents remained unproved.

4. The learned Appellate Court further held that as the documents namely the Agreement to sell and the General Power of Attorney are not signed by the beneficiaries, there is a doubt on their veracity.

5. The learned Appellate Court further, relied upon Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and held that the said document even otherwise do not create a title in favour of the appellants.

6. As far as the receipt is concerned, the learned Appellate Court had held that the same does not specify the object of the consideration amount nor records that it has any connection with the alleged Agreement to Sell or the GPA.

7. Based on the above, the learned Appellate Court has confirmed the finding of the learned Trial Court that the appellants have failed to prove their title over the Suit Property.

8. The learned Appellate Court has further confirmed the finding of the learned Trial Court on the aspect that the appellants have failed to prove the relationship of the licensor and the licensee.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings of the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside by this Court inasmuch as the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider that the PW-1, that is, the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiffs, in his examination in chief had clearly stated that the Agreement to Sell and the GPA were executed in his presence. The said documents were therefore, duly proved on record. He further submits that merely because the Agreement to Sell was not signed by the beneficiaries, the veracity of the same could not be doubted. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Alka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi and Ors., MANU/SC/8475/2008, he submits that the Agreement to Sell need not be signed by the Vendee. He further submits that the Agreement to Sell does not require attestation, mere non examination of the attesting witness would again be of no consequence. In support, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hans Raji vs. Yosodanand, MANU/S