In this regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC concerning a dispute over property rights and suit for possession, the High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose because the appellant failed to substantiate any claim of ownership. The court affirmed the concurrent decrees of lower courts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SH. ZINDA SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Swati Kumar, Advocate.
versus
SH. SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.41309/2016 (exemption)
C.M. stands disposed of.
+RSA No.331/2016 and C.M. No.41308/2016 (stay)
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no.1 in the suit against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 23.4.2016 and the First Appellate Court dated 22.9.2016; by which the
Page 1 of 5
RSA No.331/2016
courts below have decreed the suit for possession and injunction filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff with respect to the suit property admeasuring 55 sq. yds forming part of khasra no.73/20 situated in Revenue Estate of Village Nangloi, commonly known as Nihar Vihar, Delhi and whose municipal number is F 17A, Laxmi Park, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi.
Page 2 of 5
RSA No.331/2016
no.2. A reading of the written statement of the appellant/defendant no.1 shows that except for denying the ownership of the respondent no.1/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant no.1 did not plead any ownership rights in his favour of the suit property. The appellant/defendant no.1 claimed that he never paid any rent to the respondent no.1/plaintiff. In sum and substance, the pleadings/written statement of the appellant/defendant no.1 was only to deny ownership of the respondent no.1/plaintiff and denial of any tenancy created in his favour by the respondent no.1/plaintiff.
(i) Respondent no.1/plaintiff established rights in the suit property on account of purchasing rights in the same from respondent no.2/defendant no.2 by virtue of the documents which were proved as Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/F.
(ii) The appellant/defendant no.1 though generally denied the ownership of the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 and thus disentitlement of ownership rights in the suit property of the respondent no.1/plaintiff for being acquired from respondent no.2/defendant no.2, however, it was found that the appellant/defendant no.1 had himself executed the documents being an
Page 3 of 5
RSA No.331/2016
affidavit and indemnity bond Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/G and submitted the same to the local electricity authority M/s BSES for the grant of an electricity connection and which documents admitted the ownership of the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 over the suit property. Accordingly, it was held by the courts below that the appellant/defendant no.1 cannot question the ownership of the respondent no.2/defendant no.2.
Page 4 of 5
RSA No.331/2016
no.1/plaintiff purchased rights from the original owner being respondent no.2/defendant no.2, and which respondent no.2/defendant no.2 was admitted to be the owner by the appellant/defendant no.1’s as per the documents being the affidavit and indemnity bond submitted to the local electricity authority.
NOVEMBER 07, 2016 Ne
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Page 5 of 5
RSA No.331/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises to entertain a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC given the appellant's failure to substantiate title.
Whether the courts below correctly concluded that the appellant had no vestige of title to the suit property.
Whether the lower courts' decree for possession and injunction against the appellant should be reversed on appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sh. Zinda Singh
Sh. Sunil Kumar
Valmikij M. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
