JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

1. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 12.05.2015 and 04.11.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellant herein filed the present suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the shop in dispute and that the defendant-respondents have no concern with the ownership rights of the said shop. Further a decree of permanent injunction was also sought. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-appellant that he had purchased the suit property from one Om Parkash vide registered sale deed No.4344 dated 16.03.1989. Om Parkash was the owner of the suit property by virtue of sale deed No.10485 dated 14.08.1986. It was further the case set up that the plaintiff-appellant had raised construction over the purchased property in the year 1989 and given it to the defendant-respondent No.3 on rent @ Rs. 1,400 per month. It was further averred that defendant-respondent No.3 was not paying the rent and defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 are relatives of defendant-respondent No.3 and they in collusion with each other were trying to defeat the rights of the plaintiff-appellant. Hence, the present suit.

3. The suit was contested by defendant-respondent No.1 in which he raised various preliminary objections qua maintainability. On merits it was averred that the plaintiff-appellant had no right, title or interest in the suit property and that defendant-respondent No.1 was the lawful owner in possession of the shop in dispute which was constructed on a part of the plot comprised in Khasra No.800. It was further the case set up that defendant-respondent No.1 had purchased the property measuring 1 Marla out of Khasra No.800 from its previous owner, namely, Devi Daya Verma son of Roop Chand Verma who was recorded owner in possession of the same in the revenue records pursuant to the sale deed No.9320 dated 09.08.1989. It was further averred that the shop in dispute was purchased by defendant-respondent No.1 vide sale deed No.2692 dated 05.11.1990 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000 (rupees four thousand) and thereafter the shop was constructed and let out to defendant-respondent No.3 in the year 2001. It was further the stand taken that sale deed dated 16.03.1989 does not relate to the plot underneath the disputed shop. Neither the plaintiff-appellant nor Om Parkash was in occupation in any capacity of the plot on which the shop had been constructed. Suit qua defendant-respondent No.2 was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2013 as munadi fee was not deposited for service of summons. Defendant-respondent No.3 filed a separate written statement.

4. Replication was not filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as well as for permanent injunction (Prohibitory) as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

5. Relief.

5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.05.2015 dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that the plaintiff-appellant had proved his ownership over the suit property. It is further the contention that the shop had been constructed over an area of 45 square yards and that defendant-respondent No.1 owns only 30 square yards area which he had purchased vide sale