Parties must substantiate claims of property ownership with relevant documents; failure to present such evidence undermines appeal in possession disputes.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

CM Appl. 45290/2021 in RSA-229/2019 (disposed off case)

2. This is an application filed by the Appellants seeking permission to argue in RSA 229/2019 titled M/S Manoj Enterprises & Ors. v Jai Singh before this Court which has already been disposed of as dismissed vide a reasoned order dated 24th November 2021 passed by this Court. No counsel for the Appellants had appeared on the said date.

3. Ld. counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Ahmed, submits that on 24th November 2021 he was trying to join the court proceedings through virtual mode but was unable to do so due to technical issue. In view of this, today, the Court has given him the opportunity to argue in the matter. He submits that another counsel, Mr. Johar, is supposed to argue the matter, who is busy in another Court. Considering that the appeal has already been dismissed by this Court, ld. Counsel for the Appellants was requested to make submissions he may have, if any, before the Court.

4. Ld. Counsel reiterates the questions of law, which have been agitated by him in the second appeal and submits that Order XIV Rule 7 CPC has not been complied in the case. It is his submission that the Respondents did not file the documents proving ownership over the property located at Block No.B, Plot No.1, Jhandewalan Estate, Behind DTC Depot, Deshbanhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit property") or the documents detailing description of the suit property. He submits that the Respondents have failed to prove the proper title and identity of the property as the address mentioned on the sale deed, deposited by the Respondents was Faiz Road and D.B. Gupta Road in other documents.

5. A perusal of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court's judgment shows that the following issues were framed in the suit by the Trial Court:

"1. Whether the defendant no. 1 is dead person and suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objections no. 1 in WS? OPD

2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

3. Whether late Shri Bharat Singh was owner of the suit property as alleged in para 1 of the plaint? OPP If so, to what effect.

4. Whether Shri Bharat Singh executed a valid Will dated 12.08.1965 as alleged in para 3 of the plaint? If so, to what effect? OPP

5. Whether DTC is claiming suit property as alleged in para no. 7 of the WS. If so, to what effect? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit property against which or all the defendant as prayed ? OPP

7. >Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction? OPP

8. To what amount plaintiff is entitled? OPP

9. Relief."

6. The Trial court struck of issue no. 3 relating to ownership of the suit property of Lala Bharat Singh as wrongly framed because declaration of title was not sought by either party. In deciding issue 4, relating to the execution of a valid will, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that Lala Bharat Singh acquired leasehold rights in the suit property from Gwalior Northern India Transport Co. Ltd. and the same was bequeathed in favour of the Respondent vide Will dated 12th August, 1965. The Trial Court also considered the judgment in Probate Case No.14 of 1975 by which letters of administration were granted in favour of the Respondent on the basis of the said will deed. The findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is to the following effect:

"17. ISSUE NO.4

The onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff. Pla