RSA 355/2016

Page 1 of 14

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

RSA 355/2016

GANGA RAM SAINI

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. N.K. Jha, Advocate

versus

BIMLA DEVI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Khatri, Mr. Susheel

Tripathi and Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

RSA 355/2016 & CM No. 18957/2017

1. This regular second appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure

Code, 1908 impugns the order dated 20^th October 2016 passed by the the

learned Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal against the judgement and

decree dated 30^th July 2012 of the learned Trial Court, inter alia, directing

the appellant (defendant) and his family members to vacate and hand over

possession of the „suit property‟ i.e. a room measuring 14.3‟ x 9.9‟, bearing

property number 10468, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005.

2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for possession, mesne profits

and recovery of damages, against the appellant apropos the aforementioned

property. She claimed to have purchased the suit property, along with other

properties from their owner viz. Mr Ramesh Chand Saini, son of late Mr

RSA 355/2016

Page 2 of 14

Khem Chand Saini, resident of 10462, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi

110005, by way of a Sale Deed dated 1^st August 2002, registered with the

Sub Registrar concerned. It was her case that she was in possession of

ground floor, as tenant, of property bearing number 10467 Manakpura,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 and by way of the aforesaid Sale Deed had

purchased property numbers 10466 to 10468 against a sale consideration of

₹ 1,50,000/-. The said document and the site plan of the property was proven

as Exhibit PW1/1 and Exhibit PW1/2. Possession of the suit property was

not handed over to the plaintiff despite repeated requests, therefore, she filed

a case against the latter. She deposed that the defendant was in unauthorised

and illegal possession of the suit property for five years prior to her purchase

of it, as the defendant had taken permission of the previous owner Mr.

Ramesh Chand Saini for using the said property for merely one month, but

had stayed on despite repeated requests by the said seller to vacate it. By

way of a legal notice dated 9^th May 2005 she demanded the defendant to

vacate the suit property and to pay damages for his illegal occupation of the

premises. She claimed to have sent the notice by way of registered A.D. as

well as through UPC. The postal receipt and the UPC was exhibited as

PW1/3 and PW1/4, respectively.

3. The defendant/appellant had set up a case of independent right in the

suit property on the basis of adverse possession. He submitted that he was in

possession of the said property since 1985; that it had been purchased by his

paternal grandfather in the name of his first cousin Mr. Ramesh Chand

Saini, son of late Mr. Khem Chand Saini. Like the aforesaid purchase, the

petitioner‟s grandfather had also purchased the adjacent property bearing

number 10469 to 10472 Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005, in the

RSA 355/2016

Page 3 of 14

name of the defendant‟s own elder brother Mr. Sukh Dev Saini, son of Mr

Prem Chand Saini; that by way of a family arrangement the defendent had

sought permission from his relative, Mr. Ramesh Chand Saini, to stay in his

property. Earlier, he was on the second floor but later he shifted to the

ground floor because of the nature of his vocation, i.e. repairs and

maintenance of electric generators, etc.

4. He admitted that the plaintiff‟s father-in-law- Mr. Prabhati Lal, was a

tenant in property bearing number 10467, Gali No. 14, Manakpura, Karol

Bagh, New Delhi 110005 and after his demise the tenancy was succeeded by

his son Mr Nanak Chand, the husband of the plaintiff. He argued that the

entire property was constructed jointly by his father and his uncle (