4.6 The second submission of the learned counsel representing the respondent is with reference to para 25 of the First Appellate Court’s judgment, which in turn refers to sanction of the building plans Ex.DW4/A, Ex.DW4/1, Ex.DH, Ex.DI, Ex.DJ and Ex.DK and Ex.D4/A. It clearly shows that only some portion of the property was sought to be constructed. The building plan was submitted by the firm, which shows construction of the fuel station, office, store and certain shops was carried out by the partnership firm. However, it is evident that significant portion of the plot was kept vacant and no construction was reflected. The second document relied upon by the learned counsel is Ex.DW4/A, which in fact is a receipt of Rs.2,010/issued at the time of auction of the property, whereas, the Courts below erred in assuming that it is a site plan. Ex.DH, Ex.DI and Ex.DK are copies of house tax assessment register by the municipal committee. These documents are not the documents of ownership. Moreover, it is not clear whether this house tax assessment is with respect to the entire property or only with regard to only a part thereof. ‘Ex.DH’ is with respect to a house constructed on Hisar Road. Ex.DI is also with respect to a house located on Hisar Road. Ex.DJ is with respect to a petrol pump, whereas, Ex.DK is again with respect to a house. These documents do not prove that the entire property belongs to the partnership firm. Even if the argument of the learned MOHD AYUB 2025.06.12 12:32I attest to the accuracy and counsel representing the respondent is accepted, the firm M/s Prakash Dev authenticity of this order/judgment.
