Delhi District Court
Narender Kumar Wadhwa vs S. Karan Singh on 24 August, 2018
Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MAYANK MITTAL : CIVIL JUDGE - 08
(CENTRAL), ROOM NO.231, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16)
In the matter of :-
Narender Kumar Wadhwa
S/o Sh. Ram Tikaya Wadhwa,
R/o B-71, Anand Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 110 059. ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. S. Karan Singh
S/o S. Pritam Singh,
R/o 36/12, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. Suraj Pal Singh
S/o Late Sukh Ram Singh,
R/o 494, Gali No.15, Joshi Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005. ...DEFENDANTS
Date of institution : 05.10.2005
Date of judgment : 24.08.2018
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION, PERMANENT &
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. The necessary facts to decide the present suit as alleged by the SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 1 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
plaintiff are that the plaintiff is the legal and lawful owner of plot No.152, Part of Khasra No.73/24, Utsav Vihar, Block-A, Karala, Delhi, ad-measuring 250 sq. yards having purchased the same for valuable consideration by way of General Power of Attorney duly registered as document No.37566, Addl. Book No.4, Vol. No.2327, Page No.140 to 141 dated 15.06.1999 and Will duly registered as document No.30367, Addl. Book No.III, Vol No.1000, Page No.75 dated 15.06.1999 besides other necessary documents as per the mode of transfer of the property in the state of Delhi at relevant time. On 30.09.2005 the plaintiff received a telephonic call from his neighbour informing that some persons are trying to encroach upon his plot and are trying to make certain construction thereupon. The plaintiff accompanied by his brother Sh. Gulshan Kumar Wadhwa rushed to his plot and to his utmost shock found that while over the boundary wall constructed by the plaintiff earlier, the defendant No.1 has illegally and unlawfully put up another boundary wall on either side of the plot, the defendant has further started construction inside the plot as well. The plaintiff questioned the defendant No.1 with regard to his aid illegal, unlawful and unauthorized act of encroaching upon the plot of the plaintiff upon SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 2 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
which the defendant No.1 showed certain documents claiming himself to be the owner of the plot No.152. Both the parties being law abiding citizens, called upon the PCR wherein the police officials directed both the parties to lodge a complaint before the Local Police Station. Pursuant to the said advise the plaintiff lodged the complaint at PS Khanjawala, Ashok Vihar, on 30.09.2005 itself, however, the official present at the time, intimated the plaintiff that they can not stop the defendant from making the construction unless there are any court orders in this regard. The plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 to refrain from making any construction on plaintiff's plot of land, however, it appears that the defendant is bent upon to carry out the construction for materialistic concerns and deprive the plaintiff of his legal and lawful right, title, interest and claims with regard to the said property in question. The plaintiff is a middle class person with very limited means to support himself and his family and the suit premises is the only valuable possession of the plaintiff which he has acquired after disposing off his other valuables and in case the defendant succeeded in encroaching upon the legal and lawful property of the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be caused irreparable loss SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 3 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The plaintiff has also tried to contact the defendant No.2 in this regard, however, the said defendant is currently not available and his family is not prepared to divulge any information about the whereabouts the defendant No.2 and in this regard, the plaintiff is at loss to save his legal and lawful right, title, interest and claims as regards the property in question except by way of filing this suit.
3. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiff and submitted that the plaintiff has mischievously approached the Hon'ble Court. It is submitted by defendant No.1 that the defendant No.1 is the owner and in possession and occupation of the said property since the year 1993. The said property was purchased by the defendant No.1 on 20.07.1993 vide a valid General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will and receipt and the whole transaction were witnessed by Sh. Suraj Pal Singh whose signatures appear on every document of sale. The plaintiff along with defendant No.2 have filed the present suit to harass the defendant No.1 in connivance with each other. As the plaintiff in the plaint alleges that Sh. Suraj Pal Singh executed sale on 15.06.1999 in favour of the plaintiff in the SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 4 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
year whereas the fact remains that Sh. Suraj Pal Singh was witness to the sale in the favour of the defendant No.1 in the year 1993. The defendant No.1 is the owner and in possession and occupation of the said property since the year 1993. The said property was purchased by the defendant No.1 on 20.07.1993 vide a valid General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will and receipt and the whole transaction were witnessed by Sh. Suraj Pal Singh whose signatures appear on every document of sale. Plaintiff tried to encroach and trespass into the property of the defendant No.1 and finding no other way the PCR was called by the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff tried to mislead the police by showing certain bogus documents executed by a fraud who was in jail for committing fraud. That the police official very rightly restrained the plaintiff from trespassing into the property of the defendant No.1.
4. Defendant No.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.02.2008.
5. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant No.1 denying the case of the defendant No.1; reiterating and reaffirming the case as set up by the plaintiff in the plaint.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 5 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
trial:-
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 41 of a Specific Relief Act? OPD.
3. Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration as prayed? OPP.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession as prayed? OPP.
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
8. Relief.
7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 by way of his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 relied on following documents:-
1. Ex.PW-1/1 is original GPA.
2. Ex.PW-1/2 is original Will dated 14.06.1999.
3. Ex.PW-1/3 is original receipt.
SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 6 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
4. Ex.PW-1/4 is original agreement to sell & Purchase.
5. Ex.PW-1/5 is original affidavit.
6. Ex.PW-1/6 is original possession letter.
7. Ex.PW-1/7 is original Special Power of Attorney.
8. Ex.PW-1/8 is photocopy of sale deed.
9. Ex.PW-1/9 is site plan.
10. Ex.PW-1/10 (colly.) photographs.
PW-2 is Sh. Gulshan Kumar Wadhwa whose examination-in-chief is by way of affidavit Ex.P-2.
PW-3 Sh. R.P. Verma, Patwari from District North West, Kanjhawala, Delhi is a summoned witness. PW-3 brought the summoned pertaining to Khasra No.73/24 and true certified copy is Ex.PW-3/1 (OSR).
PW-4 Sh. Sameer Vats, Data Entry Operator from the office of Sub Registrar VI-A, Pitam pura, Delhi was a summoned witness who brought the summoned record with respect of GPA bearing registration No.37566, same is already Ex.PW-1/1 and record of Will dated 15.06.1999 bearing registration No.30367, same is already Ex.PW-1/2).
8. On the other hand, defendant has examined DW-1 Sh. Onkar Singh SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 7 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
Bakshi by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. DW-1 relied on the document Ex.DW-1/1 general power of attorney executed by defendant No.1 in his favour.
9. Defendant has also examined DW-1 Ms. Satwinder Kaur by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. He had not relied on any documents. Inadvertently the witnesses Sh. Onkar Singh Bakshi and Ms. Satwinder Singh were examined as DW-1.
10. I have heard the arguments and issue-wise findings as follows:
ISSUE NO.5 Whether plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration as prayed? OPP.
11. The burden of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 along with other witnesses to discharge this burden. PW-1 has in affidavit of his examination in chief has reaffirmed and reiterated all the contents of plaint. In his cross examination PW-1 had stated that he did not know Mr. Suraj Pal (defendant No.2) before the purchase of plot in question. PW-1 had stated that he did not contact any person for purchasing the suit plot. PW-1 had stated that he met defendant No.2 when he went to see the plot where some colonization was going on and there he met defendant No.2. PW-1 had stated that office of defendant No.2 SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 8 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
was situated near the plot. PW-1 had stated that he met defendant No.1 again after one week and at that time defendant had shown him various plots but he had chosen the one which is plot in question. PW-1 had stated that consideration amount for the suit plot was agreed on that day and the same was verbal. PW-1 had stated that he met the defendant No.2 on 07.02.1999 and thereafter on 15.02.1999 the documents were got executed. PW-1 had stated that defendant No.2 had shown him the title documents of the suit plot but had not given the same. PW-1 had further stated that title documents of defendant No.2 had shown him as owner of 250 sq. yards of the suit plot. PW-1 had stated that defendant No.2 had purchased the suit plot from one Mr. Surjan. PW-1 had stated that consideration was paid at the time of execution/registration of documents. PW-1 had stated that he used to reside at the site of the suit plot only, however, he does not know the exact site/ property Number at which defendant No.2 used to reside. PW-1 had stated that when he was first shown the plot in question, the same was vacant and there was no boundary wall on it. PW-1 had stated that he had constructed a boundary wall on the suit plot and the same was of four feet high covering all the four sides. PW-1 had stated SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 9 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
that said boundary walls still exist at the suit plot. PW-1 had stated that a gate was also installed in the said boundary wall. However, the said gate does not exist as on date. PW-1 volunteered that somebody has stolen the gate while the boundary wall beneath the same still exists. PW-1 had stated that suit plot was purchased on 15.06.1999. PW-1 had stated that on 30.09.2005, the wife of defendant No.2 called him on telephone stating that defendant No.1 has come on the suit plot and is constructing a boundary wall on the same. PW-1 had stated that the construction was being carried out when he reached the suit plot. PW-1 volunteered that he had called the police. PW-1 stated that defendant No.1 carried on with his construction and did not stop. PW-1 had stated that as on date of filing the present suit, defendant No.1 had partially constructed the boundary wall. PW-1 had stated that boundary wall was constructed uptil one foot height when the present suit was filed. PW-1 had stated that he did not file any complaint in writing to the police. PW-1 had identified the signature of defendant No.2 at point A on document Ex.PW-1/1. PW-1 had stated that he does not remember from where he had procured the bricks for the construction of boundary wall. PW-1 had stated that he had not SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 10 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
taken any bill or kachcha parcha for the same. PW-1 had stated that he also does not remember from where he had procured the gate installed on the boundary wall. PW-1 had stated that he had reached the site two hours after receiving the telephone. PW-1 had stated that by that time no boundary wall was constructed and only building material was procured. PW-1 had stated that on reaching the site, photograph Ex.1/10 were taken that defendant collected the building material. PW-1 had stated that he had brought a person from Anand Parbat who had clicked the photographs, however, no bill was taken by him for the said photograph.
12. PW-2 Sh. Brij Kumar is the brother of plaintiff/PW-1. In his affidavit of examination in chief, PW-2 had supported the case of the plaintiff. In his cross examination, PW-2 had stated that plaintiff had initially gone alone for purchasing the suit property and later on, PW-2 also accompanied him. PW-2 had stated that he went with his brother on 15.06.1999 to purchase the suit property. PW-2 had stated that said property was purchased from Suraj Pal. PW-2 had stated that he does not know by way of what document, his brother purchased the suit property. PW-2 had admitted it to be correct that no sale deed i.e. pakki registry was executed for the said purchase.
SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 11 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
PW-2 had stated that said plot was purchased for Rs.50,000/- and the area of plot was 250 sq. yards. PW-2 had stated that he had also witnessed the documents. PW-2 had stated that payment of consideration was paid by his brother in cash. PW-2 had stated that he met Suraj Pal on 15.06.1999. PW-2 had stated that Sh. Suraj Pal had shown the title chain to his brother in his presence. PW-2 had stated that Suraj Pal purchased the suit property from Surjan Pal from Karala. PW-2 had stated that Ex.PW-1/A is the copy of sale deed executed by Sh. Surjan in favour of Sh. Suraj Pal. PW-2 had stated that he does not know the value of suit property at the time of filing of present suit and also whether the value of suit property was above or below Rs.5,00,000/-. PW-2 had admitted it to be correct that value of suit property as on the date of recording his evidence was about Rs.5,00,000/-. PW-2 had stated that he does not know since when the value of suit property is more than Rs.5,00,000/-.
13. In order to rebut the case and evidence brought by the plaintiff, defendant had examined Ms. Satwinder Kaur as DW-1 who is power of attorney holder of the defendant No.1. In his affidavit of examination in chief, DW-1 had reiterated and reaffirmed all the SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 12 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
contents of written statement. In his cross examination, DW-1 had stated that she is sister in law of defendant No.1. DW-1 had stated that she was married at Lajpat Nagar, in the year 1997. PW-1 had stated that she got divorced in 2003. DW-1 had stated that she was present at the time of purchase of property by Sh. Karan Singh. DW- 1 had stated that she had not signed any of the documents. DW-1 had stated that she does not know what all documents were executed at the time of alleged purchase by Sh. Karan Singh. DW-1 volunteered that in 1993, she used to visit Sh. Karan Singh to purchase jewellery. DW-1 had stated that Karan singh got married in 2006 to her sister. DW-1 had stated that in 1993 she was working with Kedar Sons and she knew Sh. Karan Singh. DW-1 had stated that no document is there on the record of this Hon'ble court executed or exchanged between her and Sh. Karan Singh prior to the year 2006. DW-1 had admitted it to be correct that Sh. Karan Singh had not executed any document like GPA or else in her favour even after 2006.
14. Perusal of record and written submissions filed by the counsel for parties as well as hearing of arguments on behalf of counsel for both the parties, makes it clear that the case of the plaintiff is that SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 13 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
plaintiff purchased the suit plot from the defendant No.2 by GPA, Will, Agreement to sell and purchase, possession letter and SPA which have been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/7. As per the claim of plaintiff, the defendant No.2 had become owner of suit property on purchasing the same through a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1996 executed by one Sh. Surjan in favour of Sh. Suraj Pal i.e. defendant No.2. However, the case of defendant is that defendant had purchased the suit plot from Sh. Surjan vide various title documents dated 20.07.1993 and defendant No.2 who had allegedly sold the suit plot to plaintiff had stood witness in the sale documents executed by Sh. Surajn in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 1993.
15. The claim of plaintiff that plaintiff had become owner of suit plot by way of various title documents executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff is ultimately based on the ownership/title of defendant No.2 at the date of execution of title documents in favour of plaintiff. As per the documents filed, exhibited and relied on behalf of plaintiff, the defendant No.2 had become owner of suit property by way of registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 allegedly executed by Sh. Surjan dated 17.09.1996 marked as Ex.PW-
SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 14 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
1/8. This document Ex.PW-1/8 is a photocopy and at no point of time, the original sale deed has been brought by the plaintiff in the court. This sale deed bears the date 17.09.1996 and sale deed apparently had been registered on 17.09.1996 itself vide registration No.12742 from pages 52 to 55, Vol. No.8552. The same details of sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 has been mentioned by the plaintiff in his affidavit of examination in chief Ex.PW-1/A. However, plaintiff itself summoned a witness namely Sh. R.P. Verma, Patwari, District North West, Kankhawala, from the office of SDM, who had brought the summoned record with respect to Khasra No.73/24, in village Karala. As per the record available, summoned and brought by summoned witness PW-3, the ownership with respect to Khasra No.73/24, stands in the name of Mr. Surjan, S/o Sh. Badlu, at Khata No.449/215 min. As per record brought by PW-3, an entry with regard to sale of said Khasra Number to Sh. Suraj Pal dated 16.06.1997 with respect to two bighas and one biswas also exists. However, the sale deed Ex.PW-1/8 relied on by plaintiff contains the date of transaction as well as the date of registration as 17.09.1996.
16. When there was a material discrepancy in the sale deed executed by SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 15 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
Sh. Surjan in favour of Suraj Pal i.e. defendant No.2, from whom the plaintiff allegedly derives his title, it was mandatory for the plaintiff to explain this discrepancy specially when this discrepancy came in light while the plaintiff's evidence was going on. The fact that Sh. Suraj Pal had never appeared before the court in the capacity of defendant No.2, nor the plaintiff had brought Sh. Suraj Pal Singh as a witness to prove that Suraj Pal had become owner of the suit property by way of sale deed relied on by the plaintiff dated 16.06.1997 and also to explain the discrepancy which become apparent after PW-3 had brought the record showing that a sale transaction was entered into in the name of defendant No.2 dated 17.09.1996. Though, it has been stated by plaintiff in his plaint that plaintiff is not aware about the whereabouts of defendant No.2, however, in his cross examination, PW-1/plaintiff had stated that he had never tried to search or locate defendant No.2 nor he had ever met his wife. In fact PW-1/plaintiff has stated in his cross examination that wife of defendant No.2 informed him about the possession by defendant No.1 on the suit plot and construction of boundary walls by defendant No.1 over it. At the time of arguments as well, the counsel for plaintiff had not tried to explain this SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 16 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
discrepancy. The counsel for defendant on the other hand had relied on an application filed by the defendant Ms. Satwant Kaur under Right to Information Act and its reply given by the concerned authorities whereby it has been replied by the concerned authorities that the detail provided by the applicant (details of alleged sale deed Ex.PW-1/8) does not match from the records available in the office of sub registrar-VI A, Pitampura, Delhi.
17. The position as exists on judicial record is that the plaintiff is relying on a sale deed Ex.PW-1/8 allegedly executed by Sh. Surjan in favour of Sh. Suraj Pal on 17.09.1996. However, records available in the office of sub registrar reveal that some sale transaction had been entered into in favour of Suraj Pal dated 16.06.1997 in the Khasra No.73/24. It is not the case of plaintiff either in evidence or in arguments that sale deed executed on 17.09.1996 is the same sale deed which has been entered into the records of concerned Sub Registrar dated 16.06.1997. No efforts have been made on behalf of plaintiff to explain this discrepancy nor Sh. Suraj Pal was called as a witness who could have explained the actual and existing position to clarify how Ex.PW-1/8 bears the date of execution as well as registration as 17.09.1996 and how the records of concerned SDM SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 17 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
show that a sale transaction had been entered in favour of Sh. Suraj Pal Singh dated 16.06.1997. Further, plaintiff has not claimed that defendant No.2 had fraudulently or otherwise claimed himself to be owner of suit plot by sale deed dated 17.09.1996, however, the defendant No.2 had become owner actually on 16.06.1997. Plaintiff had vehemently relied on Ex.PW-1/8 dated 17.09.1996 for proving the title/ownership of defendant No.2.
18. It is a trite law nemo dat quod non habet i.e. no one can pass a better title than he himself has. In the present case to prove his ownership, the plaintiff was required to prove not only the valid title documents executed by previous owners in his favour but also the fact that the previous owner was having the proper, legal and valid title over the suit plot at the time of entering into sale transaction with the plaintiff. Though, the law is clear that any sale transaction entered into before the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case title Suraj Lamp v. State of Haryana 2011 (183) DLT 1, shall not be affected by the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court and it has been further explained by Hon'ble Hgh Court of Delhi in various judgments explaining the ratio of Suraj Lamp (Supra) that though a person does not become owner in classical sense on the basis of SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 18 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
chain of documents in the form of GPA, agreement to sell, Will, Affidavit, possession letter etc. however, the person in whose favour these documents have been executed can be said to be in legal and valid possession of the property in question, however, the case at hand is different. Here, the main issue which is to be decided first is whether the defendant No.2 became owner of the suit property by sale deed dated 17.09.1996 relied on by the plaintiff or the basis of sale transaction shown in the records of concerned Sub Registrar dated 16.06.1997. In the absence of entry in the record of concerned Sub Registrar and in the absence of original documents, the transaction dated 17.09.1996, cannot be read in evidence in view of the mandate of Section 17 r/w Section 49 of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and transaction dated 16.06.1997, has not been relied at all by the plaintiff for the purposes of proving the ownership/title of defendant No.2 over the suit plot. Even otherwise, no sale deed dated 16.06.1997 has been filed, proved and relied on by the plaintiff. In view of above discussion, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that defendant No.2 from whom plaintiff has allegedly purchased the suit plot was the owner of suit plot at the time when plaintiff has allegedly purchased the suit plot from the defendant. In SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 19 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
view of these facts, decree of declaration cannot be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUES NO.6 & 7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession as prayed? OPP. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP.
19. The onus of proving these issues was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff had claimed that plaintiff was in possession of the suit plot and the alleged claim of the plaintiff was based on the title/ownership of the plaintiff over the suit plot allegedly acquired by plaintiff through sale transaction with defendant No.2. However, in view of findings on issue No.5, the plaintiff has not been able to prove his ownership over the suit plot. Apart from it, in the report filed by Local Commissioner with respect to the inspection made by him on 07.02.2005, Local Commissioner has pointed out in para No.7 and 9 in the report that defendant No.1 was in the possession of suit property, however, the construction over the suit property has been made by defendant No.1 just on the previous night to the day of inspection. Even no objections have been filed by any of the parties SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 20 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
to the report of Local Commissioner.
20. In view of these facts, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession as the claim of possession was based on ownership by the plaintiff which plaintiff could not prove. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction as plaintiff has not been able to prove that plaintiff was the owner of the suit plot nor plaintiff has been able to prove unequivocally that plaintiff was in the possession of suit plot. In view of above discussion, issues No.6 and 7 are also decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUES NO.1, 2, 3 & 4 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 41 of a Specific Relief Act? OPD.
Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD.
Whether the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC? OPD.
21. The onus of proving these issues was on the defendants. However, neither any evidence has been led nor any arguments have been advanced, therefore, these issues are decided against the SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 21 of 22 Narender Kumar Wadhwa v. S. Karan Singh & Anr.
defendants.
RELIEF
22. In view of the above discussion on the issues hereinabove, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs as the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Hence, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Digitally signed
by MAYANK
MITTAL
MAYANK Date:
File be consigned to Record Room. MITTAL 2018.08.25
16:53:10
+0530
Announced in the open court (Mayank Mittal)
on 24.08.2018 Civil Judge - 08 (Central)/Delhi
SUIT NO : 594265/16 (OLD NO.526/16) Pg 22 of 22