Disposed

Deep Chand v. Ram Swaroop & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Sept 2017RSA/140/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Delhi disposed of a civil appeal regarding land dispute based on a consent order. Parties agreed to resolve title and possession claims in a separate subsequent suit filed by the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The present appeal and the suit for possession are disposed of in terms of a consent order, subject to the outcome of a subsequent suit filed by the appellant regarding declaration of title and posses

Deep Chand Vs Ram Swaroop & Ors. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RSA 140/2016

¶4

DEEP CHAND

¶5

..... Appellant

¶6

Through: Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

RAM SWAROOP & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh K. Daksh, Adv.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R % 05.09.2017

¶10

The disputes between the parties pertain to 150 sq. yds of land situated in Village Nithari, Delhi. Plaintiff/appellant has described this land as a plot no.17-A though there is no such municipal numbering.

¶11

The cases of the respective parties is that the suit property was part of ancestral property, and after partition, the appellant/plaintiff’s case is that the suit property is owned by him whereas the case of the respondents/defendants is that the suit property is exclusively owned by defendant no.3-Sh. Jai Kishan, defendant no.5-Sh. Vishan Dass, defendant no.6-Sh. Tika Ram and defendant no.9-Sh. Chet Ram (since expired).

¶12

page 1 of 4

¶13

RSA 140/2016

¶14

Whereas the appellant/plaintiff claimed to be in possession of

¶15

the suit property, the respondents/defendants denied possession of the suit property of the appellant/plaintiff. The stand of respondents/defendants found favour of the trial court in view of a Local Commissioner’s Report which was prepared pursuant to an order passed by the trial court.

¶16

The suit has been dismissed in terms of a concurrent judgments of the courts below whereby the ownership of the appellant/plaintiff has been held not to be proved and nor has the appellant/plaintiff found to be in possession of the suit land.

¶17

It is seen that subsequent to the present proceedings the appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction etc seeking possession of the suit land from the defendants in the present suit. Since appellant/plaintiff can only succeed by declaration of title and ownership of the suit plot of 150 sq. yds in his favour, it is agreed that the appellant/plaintiff will amend the subsequent suit so as to seek declaration of ownership of the suit plot and hence his entitlement to possession of the suit plot, and in which proceedings defendants will have complete rights to

¶18

RSA 140/2016

¶19

page 2 of 4

¶20

dispute the claim of title of the appellant/plaintiff of the suit plot and also hence the disentitlement of the appellant/plaintiff to possession of the suit plot.

¶21

It is agreed and it is clarified accordingly that the issue of title

¶22

with respect to the suit land is not decided in these proceedings and will not operate as re judicata between the parties in the second suit which is already filed by the appellant/plaintiff thereby seeking mandatory injunction etc with respect to the suit plot. However, the possession of the suit plot is of the respondent nos. 3,5 and 6 in the present suit namely Sh. Jai Kishan, Sh. Vishan Dass and Sh. Tika Ram and they will be entitled to use and possess the suit plot but subject to any final decree which may be passed in the suit for mandatory injunction etc which is filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶23

Reference in this order to the parties to the suit will include reference to their successors, assignees, legal heirs etc.

¶24

Appellant/plaintiff will take necessary steps that the second suit which is filed will be a suit for declaration and possession of the suit land and in which suit the appellant/plaintiff will drop all unnecessary parties which are said to be there in the said second suit such as the Commissioner

¶25

RSA 140/2016

¶26

page 3 of 4

¶27

of Police etc i.e there will only be private parties as parties to the second suit.

¶28

The present appeal is disposed of in terms of the consent order and the suit itself will stand disposed of as not pressed, subject of course to the rights of the parties with respect to the title and possession being decided

¶29

in the second suit which is pending and filed by the present

¶30

appellant/plaintiff.

¶31

Dasti to counsels for the parties.

¶32

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶33

SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 ib

¶34

page 4 of 4

¶35

RSA 140/2016

Deep Chand v. Ram Swaroop & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deep Chand v. Ram Swaroop & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Sharma and Ors. Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Pvt. Ltd.

Shish Pal Tomar Vs Hansraj Bansal

Krishan Kumar Vs M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Kamaljeet Sharma Vs Kavita Sharma & Anr.

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs Santosh Jain