Delhi District Court
Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (Since Deceased) on 17 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH,
CIVIL JUDGE1, CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
Old Suit No.484/14
New Suit No.598332/16
Unique Case ID No.02401C0304072014
Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi
S/o Sh. Raghu Raj Tyagi,
R/o 210, Sarai Pipal Thala,
Delhi110033. ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased)
Through his LRs:
a) Smt. PremWife
b) Sh. Vipinson
c) Sh. Vivekson
d) Ms. KamleshDaughter
e) Ms. SheelaDaughter
f) Ms. RekhaDaughter
g) Ms. MalaDaughter
All residents of House No. 102, Sarai
Peepal Thala, Near Azadpur Mandi,
Delhi110033.
2. Sh. Suresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Mewa Lal
Shop in Property No. 210,
Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14
New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 1 of 18
Sarai Pipal Thala,
Delhi110033. ....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 23.11.2005
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.08.2016
SUIT FOR POSSESSION
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose of suit of the plaintiff for possession.
2. Necessary facts as pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff are that he is the absolute owner of property bearing Municipal No. 210, comprising in Khasra No. 730/215, situated within Lal Dora Abadi of Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi and the defendant No.1 was the tenant under the plaintiff in respect of one shop measuring area of 9'x18' in the above said property as the defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff in respect of the said property. The defendant No.1 had been paying rent to the plaintiff initially at the rate of Rs.65/ per month which was later on increased upto Rs.300/ per month excluding electricity charges. The defendant No.1 stopped making payment of the rent to the plaintiff from 01.03.1999.
3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he filed an eviction Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 2 of 18 petition under Section 14(1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act for the eviction before the Court of Rent Controller, Delhi. The defendant No.1 appeared and had filed written statement dated 10.02.2001 in the said eviction petition, wherein the defendant No.1 had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 also denied the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the above said tenanted shop and took a stand that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the shop in question. In view of the stand taken by defendant No.1 and act of creating of ownership in himself the plaintiff withdrew the said eviction petition with a specific liberty to file appropriate proceedings and suit for possession in respect of the said property as per provisions of Transfer of Property Act.
4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that by the claim and stand taken by the defendant No.1 in the said written statement the defendant No.1 has forfeited his rights under Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act and his tenancy stood cancelled at that very moment when he claimed himself as owner of the property and denied the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the tenanted shop in question. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendant No.1 has no rights, title or interest on the shop in question and the defendant no.1 is liable to hand over the peaceful, physical and vacant possession of the said shop to the plaintiff.
Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 3 of 18
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he served a notice on the defendant no.1 under Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act dated 15.09.2001 thereby intimating him about the intention of termination of tenancy and forfeiture of his rights of tenancy due to the stand taken by him in the written statement. That after the service of the said notice, the defendant No.1 neither vacated the premises nor had replied to the said notice which was duly served upon him. That the defendant No.1 intentionally and deliberately in the premises joined another person namely Suresh Kumar, son of Sh. Mewa Lal (the defendant No.2), who is now jointly possessing the property against the wishes and and consent of the plaintiff unauthorisedly and illegally.
6. On 22.02.2006 the defendants were proceeded exparte as none appeared for the defendants. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for exparte PE.
Evidence
7. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint and relied upon the following documents and tendered the same.
Ex.PW1/1 : Registered Sale Deed of property bearing Municipal No. 210, comprising in Khasra No. 730/215, situated within Lal Dora Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 4 of 18 Abadi of Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi.
Ex.PW1/2 : Copy of Sizra
Ex.PW1/3 : Copy of report
Ex.PW1/4 : Copy of khasra Girdwari
Ex.PW1/5 : Report of house tax inspection pertaining
to suit property.
Ex.PW1/6&Ex.PW1/7 : Copies of two electricity bills pertaining
to the suit property.
Ex.PW1/8 & Ex.PW1/9 : Copies of two water bills pertaining to
the suit property.
Ex.PW1/10 : Copy of site plan
Ex.PW1/11 : Legal Notice dated 06.05.2011.
Ex.PW1/12 : Copy of AD Card
Ex.PW1/13 : Copy of postal receipt
Ex.PW1/14 : Copy of eviction petition filed by the
plaintiff.
Ex.PW1/15 : Copy of reply/written statement.
Ex.PW1/16 : Copy of application seeking liberty to
withdraw the eviction petition with
liberty to file civil suit in respect of the
property in question.
Ex.PW1/17 : Rejoinder filed in eviction petition.
Ex.PW1/18 : Copy of withdrawal order of eviction
Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14
New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 5 of 18
petition dated 05.11.2001.
Ex.PW1/19 : Copy of jamabandi (OSR)
Ex.PW1/20 : Copy of notice(OSR)
Ex.PW1/21 : Copy of UPC receipt(OSR)
Ex.PW1/22 : Copy of Postal receipt (OSR)
Ex.PW1/23 : Copy of acknowledgment card of notice
8. By way of an additional affidavit dated 11.07.2008 PW1 Devi Dutt Tyagi, plaintiff relied upon one following documents: Mark A1 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.09.1963.
Ex.PW1/25 : The GPA dated 07.04.1972 duly attested by Notary Public.
Ex.PW1/26 : A will dated 07.04.1972 in favour of Sh.
Roop Chand executed by Sh. Chottan Singh.
9. No other witness was examined and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
10. I have perused the plaint and evidences produced by the plaintiff in support of his case and heard submissions on behalf of parties. I have seen the point of limitation and jurisdiction, same is within limitation and jurisdiction of this Court.
Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 6 of 18
11. This case has been remanded back by Ld. Appellate Court with directions to give specific findings with respect to the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 09.01.2001. No specific findings can be given on the sale deed in isolation. I therefore proceed to deal with all the issues involved in the present case and the effect of sale on them.
12. I first proceed to delineate the arguments advanced by the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the shop measuring 9' X 18' (suit property) in municipal number 210, comprising in Khasra No. 730/215, situated within Lal Dora abadi of Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi. The said property as per the plaintiff was purchased from the erstwhile owner for consideration vide registered sale deed duly registered with Sub Registrar, Delhi. The defendant no. 1 was inducted as a tenant by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 stopped making payment of the rent from 01.03.1999. After purchase of the said property plaintiff filed eviction suit before Ld. ARC. The said suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit as the defendant therein denied the land lord and tenant relationship between the parties. The present suit has been filed for seeking possession of the shop situated in municipal number 210, comprising in Khasra No. 730/215, situated within Lal Dora abadi of Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi. After withdrawing the suit from the Ld. ARC notice under Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act was served on the defendant No.1. As per the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 7 of 18 after service of the notice, the tenancy got terminated after 15 days and thereafter, the defendant No.1 became the unauthorised occupant in the suit property. The plaintiff purchased this property from Chuttan Lal as per Sale Deed. The sale deed has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. As per Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the said sale deed has not been disputed by the defendant and thereafter, the plaintiff has been able to prove his case.
13. Per contra, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that as per admitted facts rent was not being paid since 1999. However, till 2001 no case was filed against the defendant for recovery of any rent which shows that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. It has been further contended that the suit land comprising in Khasra No. 730/215, situated within Lal Dora abadi of Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi, is an agricultural land. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel that the plaintiff has no where disclosed the fact that any construction has been raised over the said property in the sale deed. The sale deed also further does not disclose the existence of any tenancy in the property. As per the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, the plaintiff is running a hospital in the adjacent plot and the plaintiff illegally and unauthorisedly wants to take away the possession of the shop as well. Ld. Counsel has further contended that Sh. Chuttan Lal who is the alleged erstwhile owner of the suit property was residing at Mujaffar Nagar. No rent agreement has been produced by the plaintiff which shows that the suit property was Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 8 of 18 given on rent by Chuttan Lal to defendant No.1. It is further contended that the Khasra number of the shop as well as of the entire suit property has not been verified. The fact whether the shop is situated in the same Khasra number as claimed by the plaintiff has not been verified by any independent agency. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has referred to the order dated 07.12.2004 passed by Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna, Ld. Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi in suit No. SCC79/2003 in which at para No.3, it has been observed that Dr. Satish Tyagi is in unauthorised occupation of the property bearing municipal number 210, comprising in Khasra No. 730/215, situated within Lal Dora abadi of Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi, measuring 9'x18'. The revenue records mere examined in that case and it was found that the name of the plaintiff has nowhere being shown as owner of this concerned Khasra number. However, no certified copy of the order has been either produced or filed.
14. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that suit property is the ancestral property of the defendant. It has been further contended that no site plan has been filed along with the plaint which could show that the suit property is part of property as claimed by the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel has also referred to the desealing Order which was applied by Sh. Kundan Lal, father of the defendant. It has been further argued that the present suit is not maintainable as a simple suit for possession is not maintainable when the ownership of the property is disputed. It has also been argued that proper court fees has not been paid. Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 9 of 18
15. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that no issue with respect to Court Fees has been framed and therefore contentions cannot be advanced on the same. Ld. Counsel has referred to Ex.PW1/5, which is an inspection report of the House Tax prepared by the officials of MCD. As per Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff the report shows two things, firstly that the suit property is part of Khasra as claimed by the plaintiff and secondly that the defendant was a tenant in the suit premises. It has been argued that no document has been filed by the defendant to show that the land is an agricultural land. It has been contended that the suit property was sealed as the suit property was being used unauthorisedly by the defendant.
16. No evidence whatsoever has been led by the defendant to substantiate his contention. There is no proof whatsoever in respect of the defendant being the owner of the suit property. Perusal of record would show that no evidence has been produced by the defendant to either establish his claim on the suit property or to disprove the claim raised by plaintiff. There is not a shred of evidence on record to show that the defendant or his ancestors were owners of the property.
17. The defendant has not filed on record the certified copy of the order passed by Ld. Judge small causes court Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna dated 07.12.2004. Certified copy of the order of desealing as referred by Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 10 of 18 the defendant has also not been filed. The crux of the contention of the defendant is that the suit property is not covered under the site plan as annexed with the sale deed as referred by the plaintiff. The copy of registered sale deed dated 09.01.2001 is Ex.PW1/1. The said sale deed is a duly registered sale deed. As per Ex.PW1/4 which is Khasra Girdawari the land comprising in khasra no.730/215 is in the name of doctor Satish Tyagi son of Sh. Dev Dutt Tyagi. The defendant no.1 Shri Kundan Lal, denied the relation of landlord and tenant and claimed himself as owner of the property giving a specific number 214/1 which actually belongs to the Government as per jamabandi (Ex.PW1/19). The said property is situated in the Lal Dora. As per sizra Ex.PW1/2. Copy of khasra girdawari is Ex.PW1/4. The property in question is assessed to house tax and name of the tenant is clearly shown by the assessing authority recorded by them during inspection. Report of inspection is Ex.PW1/5.
18. It is settled law that sale deed is a registered document and therefore, no oral evidence could be adduced to show that no title passed on to the defendant under the sale deed. Reliance for this is placed on judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases titled as, Ramaswamy vs. M. Lobo, (2001) 10 SCC 176 and Ishwari Devi vs. Sarla Devi, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 86. The defendant has tried to contend that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff without bringing on record any document to this effect. The defendant has also not filed Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 11 of 18 certified copies of any orders showing that the revenue records were examined in some other case earlier.
19. The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has also contended that the present suit is not maintainable being a suit simplicitor for possession. Declaration regarding ownership has not been sought. Similar question with respect to maintainability of the suit was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) TH. LRs vs. Muddasani Sarojana, III (2016) SLT 763. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
"12. In the aforesaid background of facts, we come to the question whether it was necessary to seek relief or declaration of title. In our opinion, the plaintiff has filed the suit for possession on the strength for title and not only on the basis of prior possession. It was not a summary suit for ejectment filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Thus, plaintiff could succeed in suit for possession on the strength of the title. The issue had been framed on the question of title of the plaintiff as well as on the question of adoption of defendant No.
3. On the basis of title claimed in the suit, both the parties have adduced their evidence in support of their respective cases. The main plea of defendant No. 3 that she was an adopted daughter of Yashoda has not been found to be established by the trial Court, the first Appellate Court or by the High Court. Thus, in our opinion, there was no serious cloud on the title of the plaintiff so as to force him to seek the relief for declaration of title in the instant case which was in fact based on the strength of the sale deed executed by Buchamma, who was the sole surviving heir of Balaiah as such succeeded to the property and had the right to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
13. We are fortified in our aforesaid conclusion by a decision in Kurella Naga Druva Yudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma, VII (2008) SLT 649=(2008) 15 SCC 150, wherein this Court has examined the question of maintainability of suit for possession without Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 12 of 18 prayer for declaration of title. This Court has referred to its earlier decision in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, IV (2008) SLT 724=(2008) 4 SCC 594, wherein the plaintiff had purchased the suit land under registered sale deed dated 10.4.1957 and the defendant did not claim the title with reference to any document but claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession. It was held by this Court that the said plea did not prima facie put any cloud over the plaintiff's title calling him to file suit for declaration of title. Unless there is serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff there is no need to file suit for declaration of title. The suit for possession was maintainable. This Court laid down as follows:
"16. The plaintiff had purchased the suit land under registered sale deed dated 10.4.1957. Defendant did not claim title with reference to any document but claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession. A mere claim by the defendant that he had perfected his title by adverse possession, does not mean that a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and that the plaintiff who is the owner, should file a suit for declaration of title. Unless the defendant raises a serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff, there is no need to file a suit for declaration. The plaintiff had title and she only wanted possession and therefore a suit for possession was maintainable. We are fortified in this view by the following observations of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594:
"14. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration. ...."
Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 13 of 18
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussion the earlier decision in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy reached the conclusion that a suit for possession on the strength of title is also maintainable without seeking the relief for declaration of title. No cloud could have been said to be raised on the title of the plaintiff in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that a cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. The defendant has not been able to produce even a single document which can dispute the title of the plaintiff. The sale deed on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming possession has not been challenged by the defendant till date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Prem Nath Khanna & Ors. vs. Narinder Nath Khanna (Dead) Through LRs & Ors, III (2016) SLT 638 discussed the law with respect to evidentiary value of revenue entries. The relevant portion is as under:
"In the case of Sawarni v. Inder Kaur & Ors., 1996 (SLT SOFT) 1443=(1996) 6 SCC 223, this Court held as under:
"7.......Mutation of a property in the Revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment......"
In the case of Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand & Ors.,1993 (SLT SOFT) 298=(1993) 4 SCC 349, this Court held Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 14 of 18 that the entries in Jamabandi are not proof of title in respect of an immoveable property. In the case of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh & Ors.,1993 (SLT SOFT) 339=51 (1993) DLT 538 (SC)=I (1994) BC 200 (SC)=(1993) 4 SCC 403, this Court observed that entries made by Patwari in official record are only for the purpose of records and do not by itself prove the correctness of the same nor can statutory presumption be drawn on the same, particularly, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The respondent cannot claim to have acquired title over the suit property by pleading adverse possession only in the absence of the name of the appellants in the revenue records. In the case of Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar, 1994 (SLT SOFT) 360=(1994) 6 SCC 591 and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. v. Revamma & Ors.,V (2007) SLT 417=(2007) 6 SCC 59, this Court held that in cases where the possession was initially permissive, the burden lies heavily on that person alleging adverse possession to prove that the possession has become adverse. Mere possession for long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession".
21. It can therefore be said that the revenue entries serve as only a guidance. They are not definitive proof of ownership of the property. On the other hand a registered sale deed, which has not been challenged, can be said to be a proof of ownership.
22. The issues in the civil trial are decided on the basis of balance of probability and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt as in the case of criminal trial. It would be instructive to quote from the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.G. Dastane, Dr. v. S. Dastane 1975 AIR (SC) 1534 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delineated regarding this in para 24 and 25 of the judgment which is quoted herein below:
Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 15 of 18 "24. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact.
As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this of process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage,the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note: "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue" Per Dixon, J. in Wright v.Wright, (1948)77 CLR 191 at p. 210; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear. Blyth v. Blyth, 19661 All England Reporter 524 at p. 536." But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged. (emphasis supplied by me) 25. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof by a higher standard which generally governs criminal trials or trials involving inquiry into issues of a quasi criminal nature. A criminal trial involves the liberty of the subject which may not be taken away on a mere preponderance of probabilities. If the probabilities are Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 16 of 18 so nicely balanced that a reasonable, not a vacillating, mind cannot find where the preponderance lies, a doubt arises regarding the existence of the fact to be proved and the benefit of such reasonable doubt goes to the accused. It is wrong to import such considerations in trials of a purely civil nature."(emphasis supplied)
23. In the case in hand, the evidence regarding the facts have to be weighed on the balance of probability . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra 2009(11) SCC 141 para 32 observed that "...the burden of proof in civil cases is that of "balance of probability" and not that of "beyond reasonable doubt". Thus minor inconsistencies in evidence are not relevant in civil cases in considering the question of discharge of this burden." In another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sona Bala Bora v. Jyotirindra Bhatacharjee 2005(4) SCC 501 in para 19 it was observed, "It must be remembered that in a civil matter the issues have to be decided on a balance of probabilities." In the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. 2014(2) SCC 269 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Plaintiff has to succeed only on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the case set up by the Defendant.
24. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case on the basis of balance of probabilities. Plaintiff is held entitled to the decree for Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14 New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 17 of 18 possession of shop admeasuring 9' X 18', situated in Municipal No.210, comprising in Khasra No.730/215, situated in Lal Dora Abadi of Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi. The suit stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
No order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Announced in the open (Himanshu Raman Singh)
court today on 17.08.2016 Civil Judge1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Sh. Devi Dutt Tyagi vs Sh. Kundan Lal (since deceased) & Ors Old Suit No. 484/14
New Suit No. 598332/16 Page 18 of 18