Admissions made in FIRs can decisively establish ownership rights, negating defenses of possession or caretaker status, as demonstrated in eviction cases.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Consequent to the dismissal, by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ"), of RCA 65/2020, preferred by the appellant against the order dated 16th October 2020, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge ("the learned SCJ") in CS 50364/2016, instituted by the respondents against the appellant, the appellant has preferred this second appeal before this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. CS 50364/2016, instituted by the respondents against the appellant, sought a mandatory injunction directing the appellant to vacate the plot at P-229, Khasra No. 431/260, Joga Bai Extension, Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi ("the suit property") and to handover possession of the suit property to the respondents, along with a decree for mesne profits.

3. The plaint asserted that Respondent 1, who was in possession of the suit property, whereon he had constructed two rooms and a boundary wall, had permitted the appellant to look after the suit property, on license basis, as a chowkidar/caretaker. Reliance was placed, in the plaint, on a mutual agreement dated 29th July 2009, which recognized the appellant to be the caretaker and licensee of the respondents. Vide notice dated 24th March 2014, Respondent 1 had revoked the license of the appellant and called upon him to vacate the suit property, but as the appellant failed to do so, respondents, vide the suit, sought eviction of the appellant from the suit property and restoration of possession of the suit property to the respondents, apart from mesne profits.

4. Consequent to issuance of summons in the suit, the appellant filed his written statement by way of response thereto. The appellant did not, in the written statement, lay any claim to ownership of the suit property. What was asserted, in the written statement, was that the appellant was in physical occupation of the suit property for over 20 years with his family members, and that the respondents were attempting to grab the property. The written statement also denied the signatures of the appellant on the mutual agreement dated 29th July 2009 as forged. The appellant further asserted, in the written statement, that, when attempts were made to remove the appellant from the suit property, the appellant approached the local police where, the respondents "manipulated the complaint detrimental to the interests of the (appellant) by projecting themselves to be owners of the property". The written statement further denied the ownership, by the respondents, of the suit property.

5. Replication was filed by the respondents to the aforesaid written statement of the appellant and, thereby, pleadings in the suit were completed.

6. In the criminal proceedings, which followed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East consequent on FIR 178/2009, the appellant testified on oath, on 5th June 2012, that he had indeed made a complaint to the police alleging dispossession, from the Jhuggi being occupied by him, by third party miscreants. The complaint, which was exhibited in the said proceedings as Ex. PW-3/A, has not been placed on record by the appellant. However, FIR 178/2009, registered consequent to filing of the said complaint, is on record, and a reading of the FIR reveals that the appellant has, indeed, acknowledged, in the FIR, that Respondent 1 was the owner of the suit property and that Respondent 2 had inducted the appellant in the suit property as a caretaker. The exact recitals to that effect, as contained in the FIR, read thus:

In ver