The ownership of property was established via a registered Conveyance Deed, negating claims of ownership based on prior agreements and determining the appellant as merely a licensee.

JUDGEMENT

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

Introduction:

1. The Regular First Appeals being RFA 474/2013 and RFA 475/2013 are filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking to set aside the common judgment and decree dated 16^th May, 2023 (“impugned judgment”), passed by the District and Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 355/10 and Counter Claim No. 633/10, titled as ―Sh. Parveen Chawla Versus Sh. Kalyan Dass‖ as regards the findings on ownership, possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction.

2. ⁠The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for possession, mesne profits/damages, and permanent injunction with respect to the property bearing no. B-25A, Vijay Nagar, Delhi – 110009 (“suit property”). The Trial Court decreed the suit by granting possession of the suit property in favor of the plaintiff/respondent, on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the Counter Claim of the defendant/appellant, wherein, the appellant sought for declaration of ownership in relation to the portion of property in possession of the appellant. However, the Trial Court granted 90 days’ time to the defendant/appellant to vacate the suit property. A decree of damages @ Rs. 5000/- per month, along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a.from 01^st June, 2010 till delivery of possession of the suit property, was passed in favor of the plaintiff/respondent. A decree for permanent injunction was also passed in favor of the plaintiff/respondent, thereby, restraining the defendant/appellant herein from alienating or creating third party rights with respect to the suit property.

Brief Facts:

3. The factual matrix as canvassed in the appeals, is as follows:

3.1. The appellant, along with his elder brother, i.e., Ladha Ram and other family members, migrated to India in 1947. As the Hindu Undivided Family (“HUF”) left all their properties and assets at their ancestral place, the family was allotted the suit property, by way of an allotment card dated 25^th June, 1950 under the policy of the Government of India. Pursuant to a family understanding, a portion of the suit property, constructed in an area of 15’ X 22’ was allotted to the appellant for his residence and for carrying his business. Thus, the appellant, along with his family, has been in possession of the said portion of the suit property since the year 1960, and is therefore, the owner of the said suit property.

3.2. Shri Ladha Ram demised on 25^th October, 1977 and was survived by his wife, i.e., Smt. Ram Devi, along with five daughters and two sons. Thereafter, Smt. Ram Devi also demised on 07^th January, 1996 and was survived by five daughters and two sons.

3.3. Subsequently, the respondent herein executed a Will dated 24^th September, 1996 in favour of the appellant herein. Additionally, an Agreement dated 24^th September, 1996 was also executed by the respondent. Thereafter, on 09^th July, 2009, the respondent cancelled the said Will dated 24^th September, 1996 and claimed title and rights over the suit property.

3.4. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a Civil Suit, i.e., CS No. 558/09 for permanent injunction with respect to the suit property on the basis of the Will and Agreement dated 24^th September, 1996, wherein, the appellant prayed for restraining the respondent from illegally and unlawfully dispossessing the appellant from the suit property.

3.5. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC in CS No. 558/09, seeking amendment of the plaint with the prayer to declare appellant as the owner of the portion of the suit property under his possession. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 20^th April, 2010 in CS No. 558/09, on the grounds that it would change the nature of the suit. The said suit filed by the appellant was ultimately dismissed, as the same was not pursued by the appellant.

3.6. Subsequently, in 2010, th