Delhi District Court
Azad Singh S/O Late Sh. H.S. Ram vs Krishna Devi W/O Late Sh. Jagdish ... on 28 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF VASUNDHRA CHHAUNKAR,
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT,
NEW DELHI
RCA No:5/17
1. Azad Singh S/o late Sh. H.S. Ram
2. Roshni Devi W/o Sh. Azad Singh
3. Sanjay Kumar
4. Ajay Kumar
Both sons of Sh. Azad Singh
All R/o WZ-134, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028 ........Appellants (defendants)
Versus
1. Krishna Devi W/o late Sh. Jagdish Prashad
2. Smt. Radha W/o Sh. Jitender (D/o Respondent no.1)
3. Baby Anita (Minor at the time of filing of the suit)
4. Baby Sunita (Minor at the time of filing of the suit)
Both minors through their mother /
Natural Guardian Krishna Devi /
Respondent No.1.
All R/o WZ-134, Naraina Village,
New Delhi-110028 .......Respondents (plaintiffs)
Date of Institution : 30.08.2017
Date on which judgment was reserved: 21.01.2023
Date of pronouncing judgment : 28.02.2023
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal by appellants (defendants) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2015 passed by Shri Jitender RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.1 of 17 Pratap Singh, Civil Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari, in suit no.72/2021 in favour of the plaintiffs / respondents.
2. It is averred that the respondents (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit on 17.11.2001 bearing no.72/2011 against the appellants (defendants) herein for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction praying that the appellants be directed to vacate one room, varanda on the ground floor and be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession cum occupation and in construction over the second floor, (shown red) in the site plan Ex.PW1/2) of H. No.WZ-134, Naraina Village, New Delhi-28.
3. It is averred that the respondents filed another civil suit on 15.09.2008 bearing suit no.70/2011 against the appellants for the relief of permanent injunction praying that the appellants be restrained from placing any article on the roof of first floor or using the said roof and also for mandatory injunction directing the appellants to remove the cooler, water pots, staircase or any other article lying on the roof of the first floor of the respondents room in property bearing no.WZ-134, Naraina Village, New Delhi-28.
4. Brief facts of the matter are that late Sh. Jagdish Prasad (husband of respondent no.1 and father of other respondents) during his lifetime had given one room and varanda to the appellant no.1 on leave and license basis in the suit property. Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad was assigned and given the suit property by his father late Sh. Sisram by executing a Will on 15.10.1987 which was also duly registered in the Sub-Registrar Office. The license was revoked by late Sh. Jagdish Prasad during his RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.2 of 17 lifetime but the appellant no.1 delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. In the meanwhile, Sh. Jagdish Prasad passed away in year 2001. Thereafter, the respondents requested the appellant no.1 to handover the portion under his possession i.e. one room and varanda on the ground floor but the appellant no.1 did not vacate the premises. Legal notice dated 09.11.2001 was issued to the appellant no.1 for vacating the said portion. The appellant no.1 also did not let the respondent no.1 to raise super structure on the second floor in her independent portion on 13.11.2001. Therefore, the present suit was filed seeking the reliefs in the abovementioned para no.2.
5. The appellants filed the WS denying the execution of the Will dated 15.10.1987. It was averred that late Sh. Jagdish Prasad was given one room by the appellants on the first floor of the suit property as he was suffering from TB and the respondents never took care of him. The portion of the suit property had come in the share of the appellants through the mutual partition that took place among the LRs of late Sh. Sisram in presence of relatives and society persons which was also documented. The averments made in the plaint were denied by the appellants.
6. After completion of the pleadings in the suit no.72/2011 (old no.305/01) out of which present appeal is arising, the issues were framed on 28.05.2004 as under:
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in present form? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.3 of 17
(iv) Relief.
7. In suit No.70/2011 (old no.659/2008) after completion of the pleadings, the issues were framed on 16.02.2009 as under:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of perpetual injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
(iii) Whether the suit is barred by Section 10 CPC? OPD.
(iv) Relief.
8. Vide order dated 13.12.2010, the then Ld. District Judge (North) had ordered that both the suits were to be consolidated for the purpose of disposal and that the evidence recorded in the first file suit shall also be read in the suit filed subsequently.
9. Both the parties had led evidence which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. The ld. Civil Judge, after completion of trial, decided all the issues in favour of the respondents and detailed judgments were passed on 20.04.2015. Aggrieved by the decrees, the appellants filed the present appeal on 29.08.2017. The judgment and decree in civil suit no.72/2011 have been challenged through present appeal on grounds mentioned below:
(a) The plaintiff failed to file any documentary / evidential proof ownership of the room in question. On the other hand, the defendant established their unchallenged possession even prior to 1987. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that a person who is not an absolute owner cannot appoint a licensee without establishing their RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.4 of 17 ownership.
(b) The defendant proved that through "bhai faisla" each legal heir of late Sh. Sisram is enjoying their share. The Trial Court wrongly held that the defendant is a licensee in the property when the defendant has not been paying any licensee fee to the plaintiff or late Sh. Jagdish Prasad. The plaintiff has not provided any date, year or document to show the commencement of the license.
(c) The Trial Court failed to appreciate as to how the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable under the garb of possession. The Trial Court erroneously decreed the suit on the basis of alleged Will which was executed on 15.10.1987 and the present suit was instituted in the year 2001. It is alleged that the suit was filed after the lapse of prescribed limitation period as the respondent was very much in knowledge of the Will being executed in the year 1987.
(d) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the efforts of defendant for proving the "bhai faisla" through secondary evidence. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the admission of existence of "bhai faisla" as admitted by PW2 which clearly superseded the execution of the alleged Will.
(e) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the cross- examination of the respondent correctly on various counts and also failed to appreciate the legal propositions of RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.5 of 17 various Apex decisions that were addressed during the final arguments. The Ld. Trial Court did not give weight to the documents like electricity bill, water bill in the name of the appellants showing the possession of the property in question to be with the appellants.
(f) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that since the suit was filed by respondent no.3 & 4 through natural guardian and after obtaining the majority by respondent no.3 & 4, no application for attainment of majority has been filed by the respondent. Therefore, no decree can be passed on the ground.
10. The respondents i.e. the plaintiffs filed reply to the appeal.
11. Both the parties advanced arguments on the appeal.
12. Arguments were heard at length and record perused.
13. The main fulcrum of the appeal and arguments advanced by the appellants is that no document of ownership of late Sh. Sisram was placed on record by the respondents / plaintiffs and the deceased husband of the plaintiff no.1 was never an absolute owner of the property to appoint the defendants as licensee in the suit property. It was argued that the Trial Court has erred in believing the existence of the Will and has illegally concluded that the defendants were a licensee in the property. Ld. Trial Court also ignored the fact that the plaintiffs had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 for probate but the same was withdrawn and the Trial Court had no power to grant relief on the basis of alleged Will by holding that the plaintiffs as the owner by the alleged Will. Per contra, ld. Counsel for the respondents argued and submitted that Will has been duly proved RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.6 of 17 by the plaintiff during trial and the objections raised by the appellants do not hold any ground.
14. To appreciate the arguments of the appellants, the findings of the Ld. Trial Court have to be looked into. Ld. Trial Court has deeply dealt with the evidence led by both the parties and has given extensive reasons for disregarding the "bhai faisla" relied upon by the appellants and believing the Will relied upon by the respondents. The respondents examined PW2 Sh. Jeet Singh, a witness and signatory to the alleged Will. PW2 deposed in favour of the execution of the Will. Ld. Trial Court has correctly relied upon the case of "R. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors. (1959) Supp. 1 SCR 426", whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the standard of evidence required to prove a Will and the respondents have fulfilled all the standards by examining PW2 in favour of the execution of the Will. On the other hand, the appellants failed to bring on record any contradictions in the deposition of PW2 and also failed to lead any secondary evidence with respect to the "bhai faisla". It has been argued that the PW2 admitted his signature on the "bhai faisla" and the Ld. Trial Court erred in not treating the "bhai faisla" as proved. The said argument does not inspire confidence of the Court as it is clear from the cross- examination and also as observed by the Ld. Trial Court in the judgment at page no.27 that the said agreement i.e. the "bhai faisla" was never shown to the witness and therefore it cannot be inferred that the witness had admitted himself attesting the "bhai faisla". The appellants did not examine any other attesting witness of the "bhai faisla" and also did not make efforts to get the same registered. Further, it is pertinent to note here that DW1 RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.7 of 17 denied the signatures of his father i.e. late Sh. Sisram on the Will during the cross-examination dated 16.08.2013 in an attempt to discredit the alleged Will, however, DW1 himself failed to bring on record any admitted signatures of his father on record for comparison. The appellants further questioned the ownership of the suit property as no document pertaining to the ownership or purchase of the suit property by late Sh. Sisram were filed on record by the respondents. The appellants have argued that an admission cannot confer a title on a person but it would only shift the burden on the person making such admission to prove a want of title in person in whose favour the admission is made (Abid Ali Khan & Ors. Vs. Secy of State & Anr, AIR (38) 1951, Nagpur 327) and a title to a property has to be pleaded with material particulars such as the nature of document conferring the title, the date of its execution and by whom (Bharat Kumar & Ors. Vs. State & Ors, 2014 (143) DRJ 451 (DB). It is also argued that no one can transfer a better title then he himself has and the executor of the Will not being the owner of the entire house, could not have transferred it by means of Will except to the extent of his own share (Ajay Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal & Ors., (Allahabad High Court, decided on 25.07.2018). The case laws relied upon by the appellants are based on different factual matrix and the lis in the present appeal is completely different. The appellants questioning the ownership of the executor of the Will Ex.PW1/1 is a far fetched argument as the executor of the Will i.e. late sh. Sisram is also the father of the appellant no.1 and admittedly the appellant no.1 and his family have been residing in the suit property since long (even prior to 1987) along with his siblings (husband of the respondent no.1) and his late father Sh. Sisram. Further, in the light of the RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.8 of 17 admission of DW1 i.e. appellant no.1 whereby he has in his cross-examination admitted that late Sh. Sisram had two properties that are WZ-134 and WZ-850, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. DW2 i.e. appellant no.2 also admitted that late Sh. Sisram was the owner of the entire property and the house tax was assessed in his name. Even otherwise the appellants have relied upon by the "bhai faisla" which had taken place among the LRs of late Sh. Sisram and as per which the properties were divided between the brothers and the sister through mutual settlement. The appellants have failed to realize that claiming the suit property through "bhai failsa" is in itself deriving the rights from the ownership of late Sh. Sisram. The appellants cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. They have not placed on record any evidence to show that the properties are not self acquired property of late Sh. Sisram and that he had inherited it from his ancestors. It is also an admitted position that till date the ownership of property by late Sh. Sisram stands undisputed by any third party till date. No proof of any litigation has been brought on record by the appellants to show that the ownership of late Sh. Sisram has ever been questioned by any third party till date. There is nothing on record to suggest otherwise that late Sh. Sisram was not the owner of the suit property. The present suit is not a title suit to decide the ownership of late Sh. Sisram and in all probabilities, late Sh. Sisram being the owner of the self acquired properties had every right to bequeath the properties to his children through a Will. The respondents have been successful in proving the Will by which the suit property falls within the portion of the property under the ownership of the respondent's no.1 deceased husband and the respondents being the Class-1 Legal Heir of late Sh. Jagdish Prasad became the RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.9 of 17 owner of the property after his death. The appellants failed to prove the "bhai faisla" based on which they are claiming ownership of the suit property as they did not examine any independent witness or lead any secondary evidence and the same is also not registered which is compulsory as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. The property falling in Dehat area as claimed by the defendant does not exempt the registration of the "bhai faisla" of its registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The appellants have also not filed any declaratory suit seeking the nullity of the Will. Appellants have also not claimed that the Will is forged and fabricated. No suit ever has been filed by the appellants seeking title to and possession of the suit property. Ld. Trial Court has given detailed reasons in the judgment for treating the alleged Will as proved and why the "bhai faisla" cannot be read in favour of the appellants and this Court is in consonance with the findings of the ld. Trial Court.
15. The appellants have also challenged the decree on the grounds that the ld. Trial Court has not taken the fact into consideration that the suit has been belatedly filed and not within the limitation. The respondents have failed to give any date and year in which the appellants were given license of the property by the late husband of the respondent no.1 as claimed by them. The PW1 has also admitted that the defendants are occupying the said portion since 1987. The defendants have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Nazir Mohamed Vs. J. Kamla & Ors. decided on August 27, 2022" wherein it has been observed as follows:
"46. A decree of possession does not automatically follow RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.10 of 17 a decree of declaration of title and ownership of document. It is well settled that, where a plaintiff wants to establish that the defendant original possession was permissive, it is for the plaintiff to prove this allegation and if he fails to do so, it may be presumed that possession was adverse, unless there is evidence to contrary.
51. A person claiming decree of possession has to establish his entitlement to get such possession and also establish i.e. claim is not barred by the laws of limitation".
16. Through the said argument, the appellants have tried to challenge the judgment on the ground that the respondents failed to file the suit for possession within the limitation period as the appellants have been admitted to be in possession of the suit property even before 1987. The appellants have attempted to put on record the defence of adverse possession though not strongly worded. It is pertinent to note that the judgment relied upon Nazir Mohamed Vs. J. Kamla & Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the facts in question. In the said judgment, the appellant / defendant was claiming the title of the property and possession on the basis of registered sale deed for valuable consideration. The parties were not related to each other in the said judgment. In the present case, both the parties have been living together being joint family in the same house WZ - 134, Naraina Village for a long time. It is not expected of family members to remember specific dates of acquiring their respective portions in the property. The appellants are admittedly not a trespasser in the property. Further, it has also been admitted in the cross- examination by DW1 and DW2 that the other LRs of late Sh. Sisram are living in the portions allotted to them through the Will RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.11 of 17 Ex.PW1/1 indicating that the Will has been acted upon by the LRs after the death of the late Sh. Sisram. Further, in the said judgment the observations relied upon by the appellants do not form the ratio of the judgment as the said judgment expounds upon when a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC would lie based on a substantial question of law. The point of adverse possession was not directly under consideration in the said judgment and in para no.50 it has clearly been observed that "it is not necessary for this Court to examine the question of whether the appellant (defendant) was entitled to claim title by adverse possession or not". The respondents in the present case have been successful in proving the Will and also admittedly the relationship of the late husband of respondent no.1 and appellant no.1 was friendly giving rise to only one inference that the possession of the suit property was permissive. Further, the appellants have argued that since the late husband of respondent no.1 did not file any suit for possession during his lifetime and the appellants being in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years, the appellants have become the owner of the property due to influx of time and adverse possession. Article 65 and 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 jointly provide that any person who has taken possession of property that belongs to another person for 12 years and the real owner of the property does not file the suit for recovery of possession, it will be considered that the property in possession belongs that person who is claiming the adverse possession. The burden of proving the adverse possession lies on the person who is taking the plea of adverse possession i.e. the appellants in the present appeal. It is important to point out that the appellants have since inception of the suit claimed to be the owner of the suit property on the RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.12 of 17 basis of "bhai faisla" and have also relied upon by the electricity bills in the name of the appellant no.1. It is a settled principle of law that the person claiming ownership through adverse possession must show that the possession was actual, uninterrupted, open, notorious and hostile to the real owner of that property. The possession of the suit property by the appellants though is actual and uninterrupted but it fails on the aspect of being hostile to the real owner of that property. In "T. Anjanappa & Ors. Vs. Somalingappa & Anr, decided on 22 August, 2006" Ld. Apex Court has decided the issue of adverse possession in detail and has held that "where possession could be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to anothers title". The pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent. For claiming to be the owner through adverse possession, the appellants had to prove that they knew that they were holding the property of the true title holder, adverse to his right and interest. A person holding and enjoying as his own property can never be said to be possessing the property in denial of right of the true owner. Since, the appellants have claimed to be the title holders and denied the ownership of the respondents, therefore, the plea of adverse possession is inconsistent to their claim and both the pleas are not simultaneously maintainable. Adverse possession has to be hostile and open to expressly deny the title of the true owner in order to constitute adverse possession. There is not a whisper in the WS that the appellants were in possession of the property adversely. They have also not examined any witness from the neighbourhood or family to show that they were RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.13 of 17 claiming the property not on the basis of the title but on the basis of hostility with the late husband of respondent no.1. It was also upon the appellants to show as to when the possession became adverse to the ownership of the late husband of the respondent no.1 which they failed to prove. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession by the appellants also fails.
17. Further, the appellants have also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in "Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avtar Singh, AIR 1985, Supreme Court 857" wherein the ld. Apex Court held as under:
"where a licensor approaches the Court for any injunction within a reasonable time after the license is terminated, he is entitled to the injunction. On the other hand, if the licensor causes huge delay the Court may refuse the discretion to grant an injunction on the ground that the licensor had not been diligent and in that case the licensor will have to bring a suit for possession which will be governed by Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act".
18. It is pertinent to note here that the Ld. Trial Court has also relied on the said judgment in the issue no.1 in deciding that whether the suit is maintainable in the present form. The Ld. Trial Court has decided the issue no.1 in favour of the respondents stating that since the appellants did not produce any registered title document in support of their ownership over the suit property, the suit based on the claim that the appellants being licensee in the suit property is maintainable and as per the judgment in "Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avtwar Singh" (supra para
16)", the licensee is under clear obligation to surrender his possession to the owner and if he fails to do show, the licensee can be compelled to discharge his obligation by way of RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.14 of 17 mandatory injunction under Section 35 of Specific Relief Act. The Appellants relying on the said judgment is also self contradictory as the said judgment pertains to relationship between licensor and licensee and the appellants herein are aggrieved by the fact that the Trial Court has held the appellants to be a licensee in the property and not the owner. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment as the appellants failed to place on record any registered title document in support of their ownership as opposed to the respondents relying on registered and duly proved Will Ex.PW1/1. The PW1 failing to provide any date and year in which her late husband permitted the use of the suit property by the appellants is of no adverse consequence against the respondents as the respondents and the appellants are all family members residing in the house of their late father / father in law i.e. late Sh. Sisram. Both the defence witnesses in their cross-examination have admitted that the respective owners / members are in possession of the respective shares as bequeathed by late Sh. Sisram through the Will Ex.PW1/1 along with the site plan. Ld. Trial Court has correctly observed on page no.31 of the judgment that "the defendants have not explained any reason for the anomaly that when all the legal heirs of late Sh. Sisram have got constructed and are occupying their respective shares of property no.WZ 134 from ground floor till above then as to why the room in question only is in possession of the defendants despite the fact that the plaintiffs are occupying the portion above it".
No satisfactory reason or explanation has come on record for the said anomaly. The said fact and the blood relationship between the late husband of the respondent no.1 and the appellant no.1 indicate only one thing that the occupation of the RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.15 of 17 room in question by the appellants is of a permissible use after the execution of the Will Ex.PW1/1. The appellants admittedly are not the tenant / agent / employee or a trespasser in the portion of property of late Sh. Jagdish Prasad i.e. husband of respondent no.1 and the appellants being the licensee of the late husband of respondent no.1 is the only possible relationship to have come into the existence after the execution of the Will Ex.PW1/1 with respect to the occupation of the room in question. A license does not give any right to the licensee in the property and it comes to an end with the death of the licensor. It is upon the legal heirs of the licensor to recognize the license or not. In the present appeal, certainly the licensor's legal heirs i.e. the plaintiffs have not approved the continuation of the license and have filed the suit within the limitation i.e. just after the death of the licensor. The appellants have also objected to the judgment stating that the suit was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 & 4 through natural guardian i.e. the respondent no.1 as they were minor at the time of filing of suit and since no application after attainment of majority by respondent no.3 & 4 has been filed by the respondents no judgment could be passed. The said argument is also not convincing as the present suit is not a title suit and the respondents are not claiming title inter se and all the respondents are the legal heirs of late Sh. Jagdish Prasad.
19. The appellants have also argued that the respondents did not obtain any probate of the Will and also withdrew the petition from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, therefore, the Will should be disregarded. It has been argued that a suit for declaration and consequential injunction is not maintainable founded upon a Will unless probate has been obtained and the respondents have equal RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.16 of 17 and alternate efficacious remedy of preferring a testamentary case and it is open to the respondents to seek interim injunctive relief in such proceedings. Reliance placed on (Om Prakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. Kanta Yadav & Ors., 228 (2016) Delhi Law Times 591). The said arguments of the appellants do not hold ground as the said judgment has been set aside by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and the said setting aside has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5823 of 2019 wherein it has been held that probate is not a requirement of the Will made in Delhi. The Will has been duly proved in the trial and is also a registered document, therefore, the appellants have failed to substantiate their argument. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly decided the issue no.1 in favour of the respondents holding that the suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction is maintainable in the present form as based on the appellants right to ownership through Will Ex.PW1/1 of the room in question.
20. In view of the above findings, this Court affirms the findings of the Ld. Trial Court as no illegality, perversity or impropriety is found in the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2015 of the Ld. Trial Court. Appeal stands dismissed. Trial Court Record along with copy of this judgment be sent back to the concerned Court. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on 28.02.2023 VASUNDHRA CHHAUNKAR ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.17 of 17