Delhi District Court
Smt. Bhagirathi vs Sh. Rajinder Singh on 18 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH1. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE08 (CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCA No. 26/14
Smt. Bhagirathi
W/o Sh. Rajinder Singh,
R/o C42/5, Gamri Village Extension,
Gamri, Bhajanpura, Delhi
.........Appellant
versus
1. Sh. Rajinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Gopi Chand,
R/o 892, Sector4,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi
Also at :
Additional Director Education,
(Sport Branch)
Chhattarsal Stadium,
Model Town, New Delhi - 110009
1531, Wazir Nagar,
Kotla Mubarakpur,
Near Bikaner Sweets, Opp. ICICI Bank,
New Delhi 110003
2. Smt. Vedwati,
W/o Late Sh. Gopi Chand,
R/o 1625, Laxmi Bai Nagar,
New Delhi 110023
........Respondents
RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 1 of 22
Date of institution : 0592014
Judgment reserved on : 0842015
Judgment delivered on : 1842015
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal arising out of the judgment & decree dated 0882014 passed by Ld. Civil Judge13 (Central), Delhi whereby Ld. Civil Judge decreed the respondent no. 2 suit for recovery of possession, damages, and permanent injunction.
2. The appellant was defendant no. 2 before Ld. Trial Court whereas respondent no. 1 & 2 were the defendant no. 1 and plaintiff respectively. For the sake of clarity, they are referred to by their ranks in the suit.
3. The relevant facts in the background of which the suit was filed by the plaintiff are that plaintiff's husband late Sh. Gopi Chand was owner of property bearing no. C42/2, situated in Kh. No. 585, Village Ghonda Gujran Khadar known as Gamri Extn., Shahdara, Delhi vide sale deed dated 1921971. The property was initially ad measuring 600 sq. yards out of which he sold a portion of 320 sq. yards and retained only 280 sq. yards with himself (said portion is herein after referred to as "suit property").
RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 2 of 22
4. Plaintiff's husband Sh. Gopi Chand expired on 08011988 and he left behind his wife Vedwati the plaintiff, two sons namely Rajender Singh the defendant no. 1 & Harish Chand and four daughters namely, Kamla, Vimla, Neelam & Rajani as legal heirs, hence they all became the owner of suit property. On 2661995, legal heirs of Late Gopi Chand i.e. his sons and daughters relinquished their rights in respect of suit property in favour of their mother the plaintiff vide notarized relinquishment deed. Subsequently, they again relinquished their share in suit property vide registered relinquishment deed dated 1141996 in favour of plaintiff, hence she became absolute owner of suit property.
5. Plaintiff also pleaded that Late Gopi Chand during his life time allowed defendant no. 1 to stay in suit property as licensee @ Rs. 20/ p.m. However, after relinquished his rights, defendant no. 1 who is living with defendant no. 2 in suit property stopped paying the licence fee to her, hence she terminated the licence vide legal notice dated 0641996 but despite service of notice, defendant no. 1 & 2 neither paid licence fee nor vacated the suit property. However, they tried to sublet, assign and part with possession of suit property to third party. So finding no other option, plaintiff had filed a suit for injuction against defendants. The said suit was decreed vide order dated 3181998. The defendant no. 1 & 2 still have not paid the use and occupation charges of property in their possession inspite of her repeated request and demand, so a legal notice RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 3 of 22 dated 14101998 was again served upon them. Defendant no. 1 & 2 inspite of service of legal notice failed to pay the licence fee and has not vacated the suit property. So they are liable to pay use occupation charges/damages @ Rs. 500/ p.m. Defendant no. 1 & 2 tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of plaintiff as shown Green Colour in site plan. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit.
6. Summons for settlement of issues were served upon defendant no. 1 & 2 but they failed to appear before the court hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 16081999. In ExParte evidence plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and Sh. Dalbir Singh from Office of SubRegistrar IV as PW2. But suit was dismissed vide exparte judgment dated 18012003.
7. Plaintiff preferred appeal against exparte dismissal of her suit. Ld. Appellate Court, while setting aside the exparte judgment vide its order dated 2642010 directed the parties to appear before concerned court on 2052010 for trial. Ld. Appellate court also allowed the defendants to file their Written Statement. Thereafter, defendant no.1 never appeared before the court whereas defendant no. 2/appellant instead of filing written statement, moved an application U/Sec.10 CPC. The said application of defendant no. 2 was dismissed vide order dated 2642011 and further her defence was struck off vide order dated 2152011. RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 4 of 22 Defendant no. 2 challenged both the orders dated 2642011 and 2152011 before Hon'ble High Court in Civil Miscellaneous (Main) no. 773/11. The challenge to the said orders was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 1842012. Thereafter Defendant no. 2 filed review petition against the order dated 1842012 which was also dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 3042012. Thereafter, defendant no. 2 preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dismissing SLP vide its order dated 0332014 held that:
" Whilst we are not inclined to interfere with the judgments and orders passed by the High Court, it is made clear that the observation made in Paragraph 7 that the motherinlaw is admittedly a coowner in the suit property will not be taken into account in subsequent proceedings. The question of ownership of the property shall be decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties".
It is pertinent that the order striking off the defence of defendant no. 2 has attained the finality as has been upheld till the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed in above terms.
RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 5 of 22
8. The case went for trial. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1, she was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 Inspite of fact that her defence was struck off.
9. The Trial Court, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record has passed the decree for recovery of possession of suit property and for damages @ Rs. 500/ p.m. w.e.f. 1999 till the vacation of suit property alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.
10.The correctness of the findings and reasons recorded in impugned judgment is questioned in this appeal by defendant no. 2 on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court committed a serious error by ignoring the fact that relinquishment deed dated 1141996 is hit by Section 28 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. (HAMA) and section 39 of Transfer of Property Act. (TPA) and does not give the ownership right to plaintiff, who has filed suit against appellant/ defendant no. 2; decree of possession can not defeat the statutory right of residence of the appellant in suit property which is her matrimonial home since 1976; Ld. Trial Court committed a serious error ignoring the pendency of criminal complaint against defendant no. 2 for bigamy U/s 494 IPC. Ld. Trial court committed a serious error holding that cross examination cannot be taken into consideration as, defence of appellant has been struck off; the daughter in law and wife cannot be a licensee in matrimonial home, Ld. Trial Court has proceed on the basis that appellant is a licensee while RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 6 of 22 she is residing in the suit property by matrimonial relationship with defendant no. 1 who is the coowner of the suit property. Ld. Trial Court has not considered the testimony of plaintiff to the effect that suit property has been divided between legal heirs of late Sh. Gopi Chand. Ld. Trial Court has ignored the fact that plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in collusion filed the suit against appellant by giving her wrong address.
11. Ld. Counsel for appellant/ defendant no. 2 in support of his arguments relied upon the following citations:
1) Komalm Amma vs Kumar Pillai Raghvan Pillai, 2008(14) SCC 345
2) B.P.Achala Anand vs S.Appi Reddi, 2005 (3) SCC 313
3) Mangat Mal vs Punni Devi, 1995 (6) SCC 88
4) Modula India vs Kamakshi Singh, AIR 1989 SC 162
5) Damodar Narayan Singh vs Sardar Hira Singh, 2002 Law Suit (Cal) 189
6) Tarun Batra vs S.R.Batra, 2005 (116) DLT 646
12.On the other side Ld. Counsel for plaintiff /respondent No. 2 in support of his arguments relied upon the following citations.
1) S.R.Batra and Another vs Tarun Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169
2) Shumita Didi Sandhu vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors, 174(2010) DLT 79 (DB)
3) Barun Kumar Nahar vs Parul Nahar & Anr, CS (OS) 2795/2011
4) Kavita Choudhri vs Eveneet Singh & Anr. 202 (2013) DLT 548 RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 7 of 22
5) Kangal & Ors vs Smt. Atwariya Devi, AIR 2002 Allahbad 77
6) Baljinder Singh & Ors vs Gurucharan Singh & Ors, 1995 (1) HLR 327
7) Kulbhushan Seth vs Seema Seth & Ors (2008) ILR 2 Delhi 698 (DB)
8) Smt. Shukla Malhotra & Ors vs M/s Dee Pee Kagajudyog Pvt. Ltd, 2001 (60) DRJ 725
9) Mansa Ram v Sohan Singh & Anr, 54 (1994) DT 434
10)Sardar Hira Singh & Ors vs Damodar Narayan Singh, Civil Appeal no. 4402 of 2003.
13. Having drawn my attention to the plaint, testimony of PW1 and materials on record, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 /appellant that the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in law being passed without application of judicial mind. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further reiterated the grounds of appeal as mentioned in the memorandum of appeal in support of his contentions and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree.
14. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and gone through the trial court records.
15.Admittedly, Ld. Trial Court, in para 4 of impugned judgment held that:
"No issues were framed in the matter as there was no WS. However, from the pleadings the issues which need to be RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 8 of 22 addressed while finally deposing of the case can be summed up as under:
a) Whether the defendants were licensee in the suit property under the plaintiff and if so, whether their license was duly terminated.
b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree a possession as prayed for.
c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for.
d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/use and occupation charges @ Rs. 500/ w.e.f. April, 1999 till the date of filing of the suit i.e., Rs. 1000/ alongwith interest @ 24% per annum, as prayed for.
e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any future damages/use and occupation charges till the vacation of the suit property and if so, at what rate.
f) Relief.
16. It is not in dispute that property ad measuring 600 sq. yards was purchased by Late Gopi Chand, the father in law of defendant no. 2 and husband of plaintiff by their own fund during his life time vide sale deed 1921971. It is also not disputed that late Gopi Chand sold some portion of said property during his life time and he retained the remaining portion with himself. It is also not disputed that Gopi Chand expired on 811988 and he left behind his wife Vedwati and plaintiff, two sons namely Rajender Singh the defendant no. 1 and Harish Chand and four daughters namely, Kamla, Vimla, Neelam & Rajani as legal heirs, hence they became the owner of suit property.
RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 9 of 22
17. Ld. counsel for appellant / defendant no. 2 contended that plaintiff admitted during her cross examination that movable and immovable property of late Gopi Chand is divided among his legal heirs and she has received her share in form of family pension, provident fund of late Gopi Chand., hence plaintiff has no concern with suit property which has been fall in the share of defendant no. 1 the husband of appellant. Ld. Counsel for appellant further contended that plaintiff also admitted during her cross examination that her daughter Neelam was appointed on compensation ground at the place of Late Gopi Chand.
18. Admittedly, appellant has not disclosed which movable and immovable property of late Gopi Chand was partitioned among his legal heirs and further when such partitioned was taken place. It is pertinent that PW1 was not cross examined by the defendant no. 2 to the effect that suit property falls into the share of defendant no. 1 after partition. It is pertinent that PW1 specifically denied that 180 sq. yards of suit property belongs to defendant no. 1. Further PW1 was not cross examined to the effect that her daughter Neelam appointed on compensation ground at the place of late Gopi Chand in lieu of her share in the property of her father. Even suggestions to that effect has not been put to PW1. So, now the facts remains that after the death of Sh. Gopi Chand, the suit property belongs to all of his legal heirs.
RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 10 of 22
19.PW1 testified that on 2661995 legal heir of late Gopi Chand i.e., his sons and daughters relinquished their rights in the suit property in her favour vide notarized relinquishment deed and further they again relinquished their rights in suit property in her favour vide registered relinquishment deed dated 1141996 Ex. PW1/2. The aforesaid testimony of PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted as she was not cross examined on the same. So, under these circumstance, plaintiff established that the remaining legal heirs of late Gopi Chand i.e., his sons and daughters relinquished their right and title in suit property in her favour vide relinquishment deed dated 2661995 as well as registered relinquishment deed dated 1141996 Ex. PW1/2. Hence, plaintiff became the absolute owner of suit property. Accordingly, I am fully agree with the Ld. Trial Court, who held in para 23 as under :
"As per the oral testimony of the plaintiff, relinquishment deed were executed in her favour on two occasions. Firstly, on 2661995 by way of notarized relinquishment deed and secondly, on 1141996 by way of registered relinquishment deed. The registered relinquishment deed dated 1141996 has been proved as Ex. PW1/2. However, the notarized relinquishment deed dated 2661995 have not been placed on record. But her testimony to this effect that rights in the suit property RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 11 of 22 were initially relinquished in her favour on 2661995 has remained unrebutted. Despite lengthy cross examination, not even a single suggestion has been given to PW1 that there was no such notarized documents dated 2661995 by virtue of which the rights in the suit property were relinquished in her favour. From the evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the suit property w.e.f. 2661995 by relinquishment of rights in the suit property in her favour".
20. Ld. counsel for appellant/ defendant no. 2 also contended that relinquishment deed dated 1141996 is hit by Section 28 of HAMA & Section 39 of TPA and therefore, it does not give the ownership right in respect of suit property to the plaintiff. Now, it is to seen whether execution of relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/2 by the legal heirs of Late Gopi Chand in favour of their mother, the plaintiff is in contravention to Section 28 of HAMA and Section 39 of TPA.
21.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Komalm Amma vs Kumar Pillai (Supra) held that :
"petitioner already obtained a charge decree for maintenance over the suit property. It will be RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 12 of 22 appropriate for the High court to consider the issues by rehearing the appeal in the light of what has been stated in Mangat Mal & B.P.Achala Anand.
22. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of B.P.Achla Anand (Supra) held that :
" This indicate that the right of residence is a part of the right to maintenance and in which case in the absence of an order by the matrimonial court in the proceedings for divorce, she would not be able to set up a claim in respect of the house even as against her husband, leave alone the landlord of her husband".
23. Further Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Kangal & Ors vs Smt. Atwariya Devi (Supra), held that "Section 28 of the act will become applicable only after the order for maintenance is passed. Where the wife filed an application for grant of maintenance against the husband and during pendency of said application husband sold property and died, thereafter, wife could not claim her right of maintenance against transferee. Since transferee had RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 13 of 22 purchased the property for consideration before it was attached or any charge was created".
24. In view of above, it is clear that to attract Section 28 of HAMA & 39 of TPA there must an order to receive the maintenance out of an estate. Admittedly, Appellant/defendant no. 2 has filed a complaint case Mark K against defendant no. 1 U/s 494 IPC on 362004. The said complaint case Mark K of appellant is not concern regarding maintenance order. It is pertinent that appellant/defendant no. 2 also filed a suit for maintenance / separate residence U/s 18(2) of HAMA, (Mark B) against defendant no. 1, plaintiff and one Harish Kumar in the year 2008. It is also pertinent that appellant has not pleaded whether any maintenance order creating charge over suit property has been passed in that suit or not. Admittedly, in case in hand, relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/2 was executed on 1141996. The suit was filed on 2851999. Defendant filed her suit U/s 18(2) of HAMA in the year 2008. So under these circumstance, it is clear that no order/ decree regarding maintenance creating charge over suit property has been passed in favour of appellant in any of proceedings pending before the court.
25. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that appellant has no order for charge of maintenance over suit property in his favour hence, section 28 of HAMA and 39 of TPA is not applicable in the present facts of the case. RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 14 of 22
26. Ld. counsel for appellant further contended that husband of appellant i.e., defendant no. 1 cannot be licencee in property of his parents and therefore defendant no. 2 being wife of defendant no. 1 also cannot be a licensee in suit property which is her matrimonial home. In support of this arguments Ld. Counsel for appellant relied upon Damoder Naraayan Singh vs Sardar Hira Singh 2002, Law suit (Cal) 189.
27. It is undisputed fact that Sardar Hira Singh in case relied by Ld. Counsel for appellant challenged the order of Hon'ble High Court, before Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal no. 4402/03. Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the said order of Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 2682009. Hence, the ratio of Damoder Naraayan Singh vs Sardar Hira Singh relied by Ld. Counsel for appellant is not applicable. Now it is to be seen whether the house exclusively belongs to mother in law is a matrimonial home to the daughter in law.
28.In Neetu Mittal vs Kanta Mittal 152 (2008) DLT 691, Hon'ble High Court held that :
"Once a person gains majority, he becomes independent and parents have no liability to maintain him. It is different thing that out of love and affection, RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 15 of 22 the parents may continue to support him even when he becomes financially independent or continue to help him even after his marriage. This help and support of parents to the son is available only out of their love and affection and out of mutual trust and understanding. There is no legal liability on the parents to continue to support a disobedient son or a son which becomes liability on them or a son who dis respects or disregards them or becomes a source of nuisance for them or trouble for them. The parents can always forsake such a son and daughter in law and tell them to leave their house and lead their own life and let them live in peace. It is because of love, affection, mutual trust, respect and support that members of a joint family gain from each other that the parents keep supporting their sons, families of sons. In turn, the parents get equal support, love affection and care. Where this mutual relationship of love, care, trust and support goes, the parents cannot be forced to keep a son or daughter in law, with them, nor there is any stationary provision which compel parents to suffer because of the acts of residence and his son or daughter in law. A women has her rights of RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 16 of 22 maintenance against her husband or sons/daughters. She can assert her rights, if any, against the property of her husband, but she cannot trust herself against the parents of her husband, nor can claim a right to live in the house of parents of her husband, against their consult and wishes".
29. Further in S.R.Batra vs Tarun Batra (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"As regards Section 17(1) of the act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of Appellant 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence, it cannot be called a "shared household".
RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 17 of 22
30. Admittedly, in case in hand suit property neither belongs to defendant no.1 the husband of appellant / defendant no. 2 nor the same has been taken on rent by her husband. Further, suit property is not a joint family property of which defendant no. 1 is a member. Suit property is exclusively belongs to plaintiff the mother in law of appellant hence, same cannot be called as a shared household/ matrimonial home for defendant no. 2. Therefore, defendant no. 2/appellant has no right to stay in suit property which belongs to plaintiff i.e., her mother in law.
31. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 also contended that plaintiff issued notice dated 0641996 Ex. PW1/6 for termination of license of defendant no. 1 & 2 prior to execution of relinquishment deed in her favour dated 1141996, Ex. PW1/2. He further contended that subsequent notice dated 14101998 Ex. PW1/7 was issued by plaintiff but the said notice is also of no use to the plaintiff as it talks about termination of license vide notice Ex. PW1/6. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 further contended that defendant no. 1 has not contested the suit which sufficiently enough to presume that plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are in collusion to dispossess defendant no. 2 from suit property.
32. Now it is to be seen whether notice of termination of license of defendant no. 1 & 2 Ex. PW1/6 & PW1/7 are valid or not. It is not disputed that notice Ex. PW1/6 terminated the license of defendant no. 1 & 2, was served by plaintiff prior to execution of registered relinquishment deed in RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 18 of 22 her favour Ex. PW1/2. Meaning thereby, if legal heirs of late Gopi Chand have not relinquished their share in suit property vide notarized relinquishment deed dated 2561995, then the notice Ex. PW1/6 has no value and if they have executed relinquishment deed on 2561996 then notice Ex. PW1/6 is valid. It is pertinent that plaintiff has not placed on record the relinquishment deed dated 2561995. It is not in dispute that notice Ex. PW1/7 has mentioned about the notice Ex. PW1/6 but notice Ex. PW1/7 also itself clear the intention of plaintiff that she does not want to keep defendant no. 1 & 2 in suit property any more, thereby plaintiff revoked their license to stay in suit property. The relevant part of legal notice 14101998 Ex. PW1/7 plaintiff stated as under:
" I further therefore, called upon you through this Legal Notice to handover the physical possession of the property in question i.e., one room in house no. C42/2, situated in Khasra no. 585, village Ghonda Gujrankhadar, Abadi known as Gamri Extn, Shahdara, Delhi and also to pay the damages of the room in question to my clientess, failing which I shall be take the legal action against you at your risks, costs and consequences.
33. Plaintiff filed her suit on 2851999 legal notice Ex. PW1/7, is of 1461998, so in view of above, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff validly RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 19 of 22 revoked the license of defendant no. 1 & 2 prior to filing of suit. Accordingly, I also do agree with the findings of Ld. Trial Court in this regard which is as under.
" The undisputed facts in the present matter are that after the execution of registered relinquishment deeds Ex. PW1/2, the plaintiff herein became the exclusive owner of the suit property. Since, the relinquishment deeds are registered on 1141996, at the time of filing of the present suit i.e., 2851999, the plaintiff was an exclusive owner of the suit property. Even if, it is considered that there was no relinquishment in favour of plaintiff on 2551995, however, after 1141996, D1 & D2 were in permissive possession of the suit property as deposed by PW1. Even if, it is considered that the notice of termination of license Ex. PW1/6 was not a valid notice having been issued prior to execution of the registered relinquishment deeds, still the filing of the present suit is a sufficient notice on the defendant regarding termination of his permissive license. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of our own High Court in case cited as 187(2012) DLT 548. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Valmiki Mehta held:
RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 20 of 22 " Even if the notice by which tenancy is terminated prior to the filing of the suit is held to be invalid, then, in my opinion, service of summons of the suit for eviction of the tenant showing the categorical intention of the landlord asking the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises can be taken as a notice under Section 106 of the Act r/w Order 7 Rule 7 CPC".
34.The appellant has not challenged the finding of Ld. Trial Court in regard to the relief of injunction and rate of damages. So no interference of this court called in that regard.
35. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of considered opinion that Ld. Trial Court has examined material placed on record in proper perspective. This court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree dated 0882014 which is well reasoned/correct appreciation of facts and in accordance with the provisions of law. The impugned judgment and decree are therefore entitled to be upheld. There is no merit or substance in the appeal which is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 21 of 22
36. Trial Court record be sent to the concerned court along with copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Ravinder Singh1) on 18042015 ADJ08(Central)/Tis Hazari Court Delhi RCA No. 26/14 Bhagirathi vs Rajender Singh & Ors 22 of 22