Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Rameshwar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi - Respondent
RSA 12 of 2022 & CM Appls. 4984 of 2022 and 4985 of 2022
Decided On : 28-01-2022
A plaintiff must substantiate property claims with adequate evidence; mere assertions without proof are insufficient for favorable court rulings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal - Dismissal of suit for permanent injunction regarding property rights - Plaintiff failed to prove claim of ownership over the Raasta on the East side of the property as per the sale deed - Courts upheld concurrent findings that Plaintiff had not substantiated his case adequately. (Paras 8-14)
(B) Substantial questions of law - The requirement of producing witnesses to substantiate claims was not a significant legal issue since the Trial Court properly analyzed the documentary evidence presented. (Paras 9-12)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff filed suit against the Government of NCT of Delhi alleging unauthorized demolition threats to his porch built on the plot of land he acquired in 1985. The suit was dismissed for lack of proof regarding the Raasta, a claim he failed to substantiate despite being asked to provide evidence.
Findings of Court:
Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court found no merit in the Plaintiff's claims, emphasizing that his failure to prove ownership or rights concerning the Raasta led to the suit's dismissal.
Issues: The primary issue concerned whether the Plaintiff adequately proved his claim to the property in question against the governmental authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle that the appellate review is narrow in scope, limiting interference with concurrent findings of fact unless proven otherwise flawed.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's suit for injunction against gnctd. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendant's claim regarding public utility. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court's findings on the sale deed. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. analysis of necessity for seller testimony. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. no interference with lower courts' findings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") in December 2005, against the Defendant-Government of NCT of Delhi. The relief sought in the plaint is as under:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Restrain the Defendant their agents, servants, employees, workers, friends, assigns, nominees from forcibly and illegally demolishing the porch constructed in the property of the Plaintiff, being marked Red in color in the site plan annexed along with the plaint.
b) The costs of this suit may also be allowed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
c) Any other and such further relief as this Hon'ble court may deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the Plaintiff."
3. The said suit came to be dismissed vide order dated 28th April 2014 in suit no. 177/2014 titled Shri Rameshwar Singh v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi passed by the Civil Judge/Central-05, Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to prove his case. An appeal was preferred by the Plaintiff against the said order in RCA 61015/2016 titled Rameshwar Singh v. The Chief Secretary. However, even the said appeal came to be dismissed by the ASJ-02/South East/Saket/Delhi (hereinafter "Appellate Court") vide the impugned order dated 30th July 2021 which has been challenged in the present second appeal before this Court.
4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he purchased a plot of land admeasuring 1000 square yards forming part of Khasra No. 64/4/2 from one Sh. Kanwar Singh and Sh. Risal Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 4th October, 1985. According to the Plaintiff, the plot was bounded on the East by a private Raasta having 10 feet width, on the West by a Raasta of 15 feet width, on the North by land belonging to a third party and on the South by a Raasta of 30 feet width. From the said plot, the Plaintiff sold 450 square yards to different purchasers from time to time. According to the Plaintiff, he constructed a porch on the property which was constructed a decade before filing of the suit in 2005. It was sometime in December, 2005, that officials of the GNCTD made threats for demolition of the porch marked in red colour in the site plan averring that the porch has been constructed upon pusta. It was this threat which led to the filing of the suit.
5. In the written statement, the GNCTD took the plea that the Plaintiff's claim is wrong and misleading and that the Raasta which is 10 feet wide on the East side of the Plaintiff's property is being used as a public utility for more than 20 years over which the porch has been constructed. In the written statement, the plea taken was that even as per the sale deed, only the land was sold in favour of the Plaintiff and there was no the Raasta on the East which was sold to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Raasta was not part of the property which was sold to the Plaintiff and it was for common use.
6. Trial was held in the suit and parties led their evidence. Witnesses were produced both by the Plaintiff as also the Defendant. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined the Head Constable Virendra Singh, Police Station, Nangloi as PW-2. The Record Keeper in the office of Sub-Registrar of Kashmere Gate was also summoned to produce the sale deed marked as Ex. PW3/1. On behalf of the Defendant, Defendant examined one Sh. M.S. Narwal w
