RFA No.127/2004 Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RFA No.127/2004

%

15^th March, 2012

SHRI O.P. AGGARWAL & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Advocate.

versus

SHRI AKSHAY LAL & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Atar Singh Tokas, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.

The appellant No.1, who is an Advocate, states that he has

informed Mr. Atar Singh Tokas, counsel for the respondents, and Mr.

Tokas informed him that the respondents have taken back the file from

him. I am not inclined to adjourn this old appeal any further as this matter

is on the Regular Board of this Court since 2.2.2012.

2.

The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal(RFA)

filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the

impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 13.12.2003

dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for possession and

2012:DHC:1821

RFA No.127/2004 Page 2 of 9

mesne profits with respect to the suit property bearing MCD No.500/23,

Plot No.29, Gali No.10, Bhikam Singh Colony, Behind Masjid, Shahdara,

Delhi.

3.

The facts of this case are that the appellants/plaintiffs by

means of usual documents being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney,

Will etc all dated 11.2.2002(Power of Attorney and Will being duly

registered with the sub-Registrar, Delhi) purchased the rights in the suit

property from one Sh. Sadat Ali Khan. Sh. Sadat Ali Khan had purchased

the suit property from Smt. Jasbeer Kaur by means of similar set of

documents dated 18.12.1998, and some of which documents are registered

documents. Smt. Jasbeer Kaur had purchased the property from Sh.

Chanan Singh vide similar set of documents dated 3.12.1997. Sh. Chanan

Singh was the son of Sardar Dasondha Singh, who had purchased the suit

property from the original owner, namely, Shree Ram Sarvaria and Sons

Ltd. by means of a registered sale deed dated 16.3.1955. The

appellants/plaintiffs

claimed

that

the

respondents

were

illegal

occupants/trespassers in possession of the suit property and therefore after

putting them to notice of their illegal occupation, the subject suit was filed.

4.

The respondents/defendants appeared and contested the suit

and prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the

2012:DHC:1821

RFA No.127/2004 Page 3 of 9

appellants/plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit property. It was also

pleaded that the documents relied upon by the appellants/plaintiffs cannot

confer any ownership rights in the suit property. It was also pleaded that

the earlier chain of title deeds as relied upon by the appellants/plaintiffs

were fabricated documents.

The respondents/defendants claimed that

the suit property was transferred by one Smt. Sakeena Begum in favour of

Mohd. Saleem by means of documents dated 22.5.1989. Mohd. Saleem is

thereafter said to have transferred the suit property by means of documents

dated 14.6.1991 to one Sh. Vijay Gupta and whereafter by means of the

documents dated 23.10.1996, the defendant No.4 had purchased the rights

in the suit property.

5.

After completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed the

following issues:-

“1.

Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable and

liable to be dismissed as alleged in P.O. No.1 to 7?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as

prayed?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the possession as

prayed?

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed?

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the damages? If so, at

what rate and for