Delhi District Court
Sh. Dharampal vs Sh. Bhola Ram on 15 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF :
DR. V.K. DAHIYA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Regular Civil Appeal No. 74/2018
In the matter of:
1. Sh. Dharampal
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal
R/o H No. 271, VPO Mitraon,
New Delhi.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Bhola Ram
S/o Sh. Jai Lal
R/o H no. 272, VPO Mitraon,
New Delhi.
2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Dr. Shyama Prasad
Mukherjee Civic Centre,
Minto Road, Delhi110002.
3. Gaon Sabha, Mitraon,
Through Block Development Officer,
Nazafgarh Zone, New Delhi.
....Respondents
RCA No.74/2018
Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.1 of 20
Date of Institution of Appeal : 07.09.2018
Date of Transfer to this Court : 01.03.2021
Date of reserving judgment : 15.04.2021
Date of pronouncement : 15.04.2021
REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/DECREE
DATED 24.05.2018 PASSED BY DR. JAGMINDER SINGH, Ld.ASCJ
SOUTH WEST DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
J U D G M E N T:
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment decree dated 24.05.2018, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed. The parties are herein after referred to as per their litigative status before the ld. Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are like this:
(i) The plaintiff averred in the plaint that plaintiff is owner in possession of House No. 271, Old Lal Dora, Abadh Deh, Out of Khasra No. 115, Village Mitraon, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Defendant no. 1 is the neighbour of plaintiff and is the owner and in possession of adjoining House No. 272 Old Lal Dora, Abadi Deh, Out of Khasra No. 115, Village Mitraon, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the said property).
(ii) The defendant no. 1 wanted to construct stairs at the entrance of the said property and thereby blocked the entry gate of the suit RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.Page No.2 of 20
property. The defendant has also raised unauthorized construction at the 1st floor of the said property. The plaintiff made complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi but no action was taken by defendant no.2. The plaintiff, therefore, made complaint to ld. SDM and concerned ld. SDM restrained defendant no. 1 from carrying out illegal construction on public land vide order dated 02.02.2012. However, said order was withdrawn by concerned ld. SDM through order dated 25.04.2012 with the directions to defendant no.1 to approach the office of MCD for seeking sanction for repairing of the said property. Defendant no.1 again started illegal construction over the said property and the present suit has been filed.
3. The summons for settlement of issues was issued to defendants. Defendant no. 1 & 3 have filed written statement. However, no written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 1, in his written statement, submitted that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as plaintiff has no concern with the said property. There is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. The suit is bad for non compliance of Section 80 of CPC as well as for nonjoinder / misjoinder of parties. Plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. Defendant no.1 has denied the allegations that he has raised construction in the shape of projection/chajja in the said property. Defendant no.1 has never encroached upon the public land as alleged. The said property RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.3 of 20is having very old constructed/raised by the forefathers of the defendant no.1 and was in a very dilapidated condition. Therefore, defendant no.1 renovated the same and there is no illegal construction of any kind and the alleged stairs and projection/chajja were constructed as per bylaws. The plaintiff is a habitual complainant. However, the defendant has not committed any illegal act by raising the construction on the said property. The plaintiff has filed case before public authority and ld. SDM directed defendant no.1 to approach the defendant no. 2 for taking permission for raising construction over the said property.
4. Defendant submitted layout plan of the said property before the office of defendant no.2 which was never objected by defendant no. 2. Therefore, there is nothing illegal on the part of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 has not encroached upon a single inch on public land in any manner. Defendant no. 1 has not raised any illegal construction, therefore, there is no question of causing damage to the suit property owned by plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 thereafter filed the reply to the amended plaint wherein contents of the previous written statement were reiterated.
5. Written statement has also been filed by defendant no.3 wherein it is stated that plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions of Section 199 of Delhi Panchyati Raj Act for issuance of two months prior notice. The plaint is liable to be rejected and the contents made in the plaint are denied in toto and, inter alia, it is submitted that no RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.4 of 20such unauthorized construction has been raised over the said property by defendant no. 1.
6. The plaintiff filed replication to written statement filed by Defendant no. 1 & 3 and denied allegations made in the said written statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 08.02.2010 :
Issues
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant no. 1, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants No. 1 and 2, as prayed for? OPP
3. Relief
8. To prove the case, plaintiff led evidence and thereafter defendant was allowed to led defence evidence and after conclusion of defence evidence, ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, present appeal has been preferred and during the course of arguments, counsel for the plaintiff has raised following contentions:
(i) The ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that the defendant no. 1 has raised unauthorized construction and on the RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.Page No.5 of 20
complaint made by the plaintiff directions were issued by concerned ld. SDM for obtaining sanction for repairing of the said property in terms of Ex PW 1/5 & Ex PW 1/7. However, defendant no. 1 has raised the construction without taking any sanction from the concerned authority, therefore, impugned judgment and decree are deserved to be set aside.
(ii) Ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that it is the pleading of defendant no. 1 that he has not raised any unauthorized construction over the said property whereas report of Naib Tehsildar dated 23.02.2012, on the basis of which ld. SDM passed the order vacating the stay, it was observed that there is encroachment of about three and half feet on the public land for the construction of projection/chajja and even admission made by defendant no. 1 through letter dated 27.02.2012 before ld. SDM that defendant no. 1 has reduced the length of chajja by only two feet is there on record.
(iii) The Ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that there is material on record that defendant no.1 raised the stairs as well as projection/chajja on public land in violation of order dated 25.04.2018 passed by ld. SDM.
(iv) The Ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that defendant no.1 has raised construction on the public land in violation of order passed by ld. SDM as well as the Land & Building bye laws, for the time being in force.
RCA No.74/2018Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.6 of 20(v) Ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that unauthorized construction of the stair case was raised by defendant no. 1 which has resulted into obstruction of the full enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.
(vi) The ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that it is the case of defendant no. 3 that no one is entitled to raise unauthorized construction on the public land without the permission of building laws applicable to village abadi with effect from 17.01.2014. However, the ld. Trial court has not appreciated the admission of defendant no.1 that he has raised construction in violation of the directions issued by ld. SDM whereby defendant no.1 was directed to obtain necessary sanction for raising construction.
(vii) The ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that ld. SDM passed self contradictory order in as much as report of Naib Tehsildar reflects that there is projection/chajja of the size of 2.5 feet where as defendant no. 1 admitted that length of projection as 2 feet. Therefore, there was clearly encroachment made by defendant no.1 on the public land by raising construction over the said property.
(xiii) The ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that unauthorized and illegal construction over the said property is liable to be demolished under Section 343(1) DMC Act, 1952. In support of RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.7 of 20his submissions, ld. counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
a) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. M/s Sunbeam High Tech developers Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 14 Scale 378,
b) Roma Dutta & Anr. v. MCD & Ors. 2006(88) DRJ 285(DB)
c) Nazir Hussain v. Neeta Goel, in CM No. 946/2009
d) Amarjeet v. SDMC in WP(C) No. 921/201
e) Anirudh Kumar v. MCD & Ors. in CA No. 8284/2013 (judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi)
f) Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. Of Mumbai in CA No. 7934/2012
g) Onkar Nath v. Ram Nath Gupta, AIR 1985 Del. 293
10. Per contra, ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 made oral submissions and also filed written submissions and inter alia contended that plaintiff has raised allegation that defendant no.1 raised unauthorized construction over the said property as well as defendant no.1 has raised projection(chajja) in violation of the rules and regulations framed by defendant no.3. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the order of ld. SDM that there was no fresh encroachment on the public land and no illegal construction has been found raised over the said property. The Plaintiff has admitted that he has not preferred an appeal against order dated 25.04.2012 passed by ld. SDM. Apart from that, the Local Commissioner, appointed by ld. Trial Court, has not found any unauthorized construction over the suit property in the report filed before ld. Trial RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.8 of 20Court. The plaintiff failed to file any cogent evidence so as to show that defendant no.1 has raised unauthorized construction over the suit property in violation of the rule of building bye laws. Therefore, the suit has rightly been dismissed and appeal also deserved to be dismissed.
11. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record.
12. First of all, I shall dispose of the application moved by plaintiff for leading additional evidence. In this application it is stated that some important documents had not been brought on record which are very much essential for proper adjudication of the present appeal, however, on account of non awareness of the importance of the said documents on the part of the plaintiff and the negligence of the counsel for the plaintiff, such documents could not be brought on record. These documents are sought to be produced on record for effectively and complete adjudication of the present appeal.
13. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has pointed out this fact that on account of nonavailability of the dimension of the street, projection/chajja and stairs as well as the measurement of the house of the plaintiff, the case of the plaintiff could not be established. The encroachment upon public land is totally prohibited under the building bylaws 1983 in Delhi and this fact has been duly established in the reply dated 05.07.2013 supplied by SDMC in RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.9 of 20response to the RTI application moved by the plaintiff regarding encroachment and on account of negligence of the counsel for the plaintiff, the said reply of the RTI application has also not been brought on record, which is very much necessary for complete adjudication of the real issue between the parties and to do the complete justice in the present case.
14. The following documents are sought to be placed on record by way of this application, which are as under:
a) Reply by SDMC vide F.No. EE(B)/NGZ/13/D708 dated 05.07.2013 to the RTI Application to SDMC, i.e. as per Delhi Building Bye Laws, No roof projection/chajja is allowed on all Municipal Land and No encroachment is allowed in Gali/Road on Municipal land.
b) Photographs already exhibited of the encroached public land by the Respondents/Defendant no. 1 as well as new photographs showing the status of the disputed property after the vacation of the stay by the concerned SDM which was subject to some conditions to be fulfilled by the respondent/defendant and before the impugned judgment.
c) Site plan/dimension of the public street in front of the house of Appellant/Plaintiff and measurement of stairs and projection/chajja.
d) Notification w.e.f. 17.01.2011 regarding Building Bye Laws.
RCA No.74/2018Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.10 of 20It is prayed that this application may be allowed and the above said documents be brought on record by way of leading additional evidence.
15. Reply to this application has been filed by the defendant No. 1 and interalia, it is submitted that this application is not maintainable in as much as the same has been filed without any affidavit in support thereof. It is further submitted that this application is not falling within the four corners of the provision under order XLI rule 27 CPC. It is further submitted that the alleged documents which are sought to be brought on record were very much in the custody of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit before the learned Trial Court and plaintiff as well as counsel for plaintiff were very much aware of the relevancy of the said documents within the present suit. The reply to RTI application was received by the plaintiff in the month of July 2013, however, at this stage this application has been moved to place on record these documents with the only purpose to fill up the lacuna in the case of the plaintiff, as pointed out by the learned Trial Court.
16. It is further submitted that the public street as well as the house of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are part and parcel of the old Lal Dora Abadi of the village and as per Section 8 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act the person who is possession of the respective portion is the owner of the said premises. The defendant no. 1 has not encroached upon even a single inch of public land. Defendant No. 1 has only renovated his old house i.e original underneath and RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.11 of 20has not changed anything in the old dimensions. It is further submitted that in the reply given by the SDMC there is nothing to infer that any encroachment has been done by defendant no. 1. This application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
17. It may be noted that the law with regard to the taking of additional evidence has been laid down by the Superior Courts in as much as Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin in Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008 has held as under:
"Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C.
"25. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the rule itself. XXXX
26. The Appellate Court should not, ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment.RCA No.74/2018
Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.Page No.12 of 20
XXXX
27. Under Order XLI , Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate Court is empowered to admit additional evidence.
XXXX
28. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower Court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal.
XXXX"
18. With the above said principles of law in mind, I would like to advert to the facts of the present case. It may be noted that the plaintiff want to place on record the above said documents which were very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff as well as counsel for the plaintiff during the trial and, at this stage, the counsel for the plaintiff failed to point out any ground which may lead to conclude that the same is covered by any of the clauses of the provision of RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.13 of 20order XLI rule 27 CPC in as much as the only ground put forth in this application is that on account of negligence of ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, these documents cannot be placed on record. Apart from that, the status report has been filed by the SDMC, wherein it has been pointed out that no unauthorised construction was found either at the ongoing stage or has been carried out in the recent past on the said property and on local enquiry it transpired that the said property was constructed about 78 years back. It is further pointed out in the said report that in terms of the Gazette Notification issued by Government of India the construction carried out up to 01.06.2014 in unauthorised colonies/village abadi area and its extension are protected form of any punitive action up to 01.12.2020 and the said property is covered under the said gazette notification of the government of India. From the perusal of the record, it appears that this application has been moved only to fill up the lacuna in the case by plaintiff in as much as all the documents were very much in power and possession of the plaintiff which, plaintiff for the reasons best known to him failed to place on record during the trial and, at this stage, these documents are sought to be produced only to fill up the lacuna left out in the case of the plaintiff in the trial. Therefore, this application is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and dismissed as disposed off accordingly.
19. The points for determination in the present appeal are as under:
RCA No.74/2018Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.Page No.14 of 20
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction.
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case
20. So far as first point of determination is concerned, it is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff is that defendant no.1 has attempted to raise illegal/unauthorised construction as has been observed by learned SDM in the restraint order dated 02.02.2012. However, the said order has been got set aside by defendant no. 1 by misrepresenting the facts that construction over the public land has been removed. However the defendant no. 1 has raised the construction after the vacation of the restraint order in flagrant violation of the orders of learned SDM and the land and building bylaws. In this regard, it may be noted that the learned SDM has passed the restraint order dated 02.02.2012 Ex. PW1/8 restraining defendant no. 1 to raise any further construction however, the said order has been set aside in terms of order dated 25.04.2012 Ex. PW1/9 by making observation that no fresh encroachment upon the 'public rasta' or illegal construction was found as per the field visit report and defendant No. 1 was directed to approach the office of defendant no. 2 for obtaining the section for repair of the said property and, admittedly, no appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.04.2012 Ex. PW1/9 passed by learned SDM. It is further relevant to observe held that in terms of the order Ex. PW1/9 no prima facie fresh encroachment for raising illegal construction was RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.15 of 20found raised on public rasta or in the house of defendant no. 1. Furthermore, plaintiff as PW1 has testified that the alleged staircase on the public land and projection/chajja on the 1st floor of the house of the defendant No. 1 comes in front of the suit property, therefore, as per the pleadings and evidence of plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 has already raised the construction over the said property.
21. It may be noted that for grant of a permanent injunction the plaintiff was supposed to prove that defendant no. 1 is trying to encroach the public land by way of making staircase and raising unauthorised construction in the shape of projection/chajja towards the public street and suit property thereby obstructing the entry of plaintiff into the suit property. Apart from that in the Local Commissioner report Ex. PW1/10, the alleged construction over the said property was found already constructed. Plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence on record that the alleged projection/chajja raised by the defendant over the said property is made in violation of the rules/regulations/bylaws and even defendant no. 2 has failed to place on record any document that the defendant no. 1 has encroached upon the public land by way of the alleged illegal construction raised by defendant no. 1. There is admission of plaintiff as PW1 that the alleged encroachment in public land and staircase were already constructed by defendant no. 1, therefore, the alleged construction of the staircase and projection/chajja had already been constructed by the defendant no.1, as such the observation of the learned trial court that no injunction can be passed at this stage to stop the construction RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.16 of 20in as much as the alleged construction has been raised by defendant no. 1 over the suit property cannot be said either contrary to the record or contrary to the law. The findings recorded by the learned trial court that the plaintiff has failed to prove on record that defendant no.1 is raising unauthorised construction over the said property, therefore, no decree of permanent injunction can be passed in favour of the plaintiff are not perverse and I found no ostensible reason to disagree with the findings so recorded by the learned trial court. Therefore, this point of determination is decided against the plaintiff.
22. So far as the second point of determination for grant of decree of mandatory injunction to the plaintiff is concerned, suffice is to say that the learned trial court has observed that plaintiff has failed to prove on record as to how the construction raised over the suit property by defendant no. 1 is in violation of the relevant building bylaws and furthermore, plaintiff has failed to prove as to what is the dimension of the public street in front of the suit property as well as the said property and up to what extent. The plaintiff has further failed to prove on record that defendant no. 1 has encroached upon the public street and the said alleged illegal construction either of the staircase or the said chajja has obstructed the entry of plaintiff into the suit property. PW1 has testified that he did not have any documentary evidence to show the area of the suit property, the areas/measurement of the public street existed in front of the suit property. Even the plaintiff has been found oblivious to the contents RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.17 of 20of his evidence affidavit. Furthermore, plaintiff had testified that he did not know the width of the public street/public passage in existence in front of the said property and the plaintiff has not taken any information regarding the width of the public street existing either in front of the suit property or the said property. Plaintiff as PW1 has admitted that the level of the public passage is equal to the level of the suit property and the level of the said property is about to 2 - 2.5 feet high from the public passage and 1 - 2 staircases are necessary for making entry into the house of defendant no. 1 PW1 further admitted that the staircase constructed by defendant no. 1 did not come in front of gate of the suit property. As far as the contention that the admission of defendant no. 1/DW1 regarding lack of obtaining any sanction/permission for repairing of the said property and for construction of staircase in front of the said property is concerned, suffice is to say that, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument, though not admitted, that defendant no. 1 admitted that the said staircases allegedly constructed in front of the said property and the projection/chajja is illegally projected on the public passage yet in the absence of any evidence showing the exact dimension of the public street/passage the alleged admission of defendant no. 1 did not prove the case of plaintiff in as much as plaintiff was supposed to prove its case at least by the preponderance of probabilities, which plaintiff failed to do so. The observation made by the learned trial court on this issue cannot be faulted with and I found no ostensible reason to disagree with the findings so recorded by the learned Trial court.
RCA No.74/2018Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.18 of 2023. So far as the case law relied upon by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is concerned, suffice is to say that in Sunbeam Hightech (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para no. 23, has laid down the directions regarding the manner in which evidence of illegal construction/reconstruction etc. is collected and notices are issued and served, which is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity, however, the ratio of said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case in as much as no punitive action can be taken against the construction carried upto 01.06.2014 in unauthorised colonies/village abadi area upto 31.12.2020 in terms of the NCT of Delhi Laws(Special Provisions) Second(Amendment) Act, 2017 as detailed in the status report filed by the SDMC. Needless to say that SDMC/defendant no. 2 is at liberty to take action as per law against defendant no. 1, in case he is found to have flouted rules/bye laws in raising such alteration/constructions of the staircase or projection over the said property after the embargo as placed by the above said Act is lifted, as per the rules /regulations / bye laws made in this behalf by defendant no. 2.
24. In the same manner the ratio of Roma Dutta(supra) is to the effect that the non compoundable deviation were supposed to be demolished by the respondents(therein) forthwith, failing which it was supposed to be done by the MCD with police help. So is the ratio of other case law that illegal constructions are to be removed as per law. However, the said ratio is not applicable to the facts of the present case by virtue of the embargo imposed upon by the provisions of the above said Act.
RCA No.74/2018Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors.
Page No.19 of 2025. From the above observation, it can be safely concluded that there is no substance in this appeal and the findings recorded by the learned trial court did not suffers from any illegality or perversity which may warrant any interference by this court while exercising the power of the appellate court and I found no ostensible reason to disagree with the finding so recoded by ld. Trial court. This appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed and disposed off accordingly.
Trial court record be sent back along with copy of this judgment.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
DR Digitally signed by DR VIJAY Announced and dictated on VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA 15th Day of April 2021. KUMAR Date: 2021.05.15 DAHIYA 16:34:59 +0530 (V.K. DAHIYA) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE01 (SOUTH WEST) DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI. RCA No.74/2018 Dharam Pal v. Bhola Ram & Ors. Page No.20 of 20