NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005114

RSA 202/2017

Page 1 of 16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RSA 202/2017

Judgment reserved on : 09.01.2019

Date of decision : 25.11.2022

SARTI DEVI (Deceased) Represented through LRs

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

versus

GURDWARA

MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE,

GURUDWARA NANAK SAR THAAT

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

JUDGMENT

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1.

The appellant vide this Regular Second Appeal under Section

100 of the CPC, 1908 as amended assails the findings of the learned

trial Court in Suit No. M38/99 dated 25.02.2000 and also assails the

judgment/decree dated 22.04.2017 of the First Appellate Court of the

learned ADJ-02, West in RCA 1/17/91 whereby the appeal against the

said judgment and counter objections in relation thereto were both

dismissed.

Digitally Signed

By:SUMIT GHAI

Signing

Date:25.11.2022

11:07:49

This file is

digitally signed by

PS to HMJ ANU

MALHOTRA.

Signature

Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005114

RSA 202/2017

Page 2 of 16

2.

The sole appellant now who was arrayed as plaintiff no.2 to the

suit as initially instituted had filed a suit for possession and recovery

of Rs.17760/- on account of damages against defendant no.1, the

Gurudwara Management Committee, Gurudwara Nanaksar Thath and

against defendant no.2 Sant Baba Amar Singhji, President of the said

Committee contending that the plaintiffs were owners of three bighas

of land forming part of Khasra No.1673/1100, Khewat Jamabandi

No.69/70, Khatauni No.189 in the revenue estate of village Bahapur,

Delhi as per Settlement of 1949/1950 and that the defendants had

illegally encroached upon the part of the said land measuring 2200 sq.

yrds. in February, 1979 and had raised unauthorized construction of a

gurudwara over the same and despite protests made by the plaintiffs,

the defendants paid no heed to the same whereupon the plaintiffs

served a notice dated 05.02.1991 upon the defendants requesting them

to remove the unauthorized construction and to hand over back the

vacant peaceful possession of the land to the plaintiffs but the

defendants did not respond and rather encroached (upon 800 sq. yrd.

of land also which also belonged to the plaintiff in February, 1981)

and thus the plaintiffs issued another notice dated 25.01.1982 again

calling upon the defendant to remove the illegal and unauthorized

construction and hand over to them the peaceful vacant possession of

the land measuring 3 bighas to which also there was no response from

the defendant nos.1 & 2 and thus the suit was filed by the plaintiffs

seeking recovery of possession and for damages. The defendant nos.1

& 2 apart from the other contentions raised by them through the

written statement submitted that the plaintiff had no locus standi to

Digitally Signed

By:SUMIT GHAI

Signing

Date:25.11.2022

11:07:49

This file is

digitally signed by

PS to HMJ ANU

MALHOTRA.

Signature

Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005114

RSA 202/2017

Page 3 of 16

file the suit and the suit was not supported with the detailed site plan

and the suit was barred by limitation and because defendant no.2 had

been in possession of the suit property since December, 1969 and

around and that he had raised the construction of the impugned

Gurudwara for religious purposes and that the possession of the

defendant no.2 had all along been open, continuous and hostile to all

persons including the plaintiffs since 1969 and that the defendant no.2

had spent about Rs.30 lakhs on the construction of the superstructure

and no objection at any point of time during the construction of the

Gurudwara was raised by anyone including the plaintiff. Inter alia it

had been contended by defendant nos.1 & 2 that the suit was barred

under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

3.

Issues that were framed in the said suit were to the effect:

D