Delhi District Court
Mohd. Rehan vs The Custodian Enemy Property For India on 26 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE 07,
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presiding Officer: Ms. AANCHAL, DJS
Civil Suit No. : 25/16
ID No. : 431/16
Mohd. Rehan
S/o Haji Mohd. Yusuf
Shop no. 692, Chowk Chitli Qabar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi. .......Plaintiff
vs.
The Custodian Enemy property for India,
KaisereHind Building,
Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai. ....... Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 02.11.2002
Date of Judgment : 26.07.2016
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide this judgment, this court shall decide the aforesaid suit filed by plaintiff seeking following relief : A decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner in possession of suit property/ shop no. 692, situated at Chowk Bazar, Chitli Qabar, Delhi be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. And in consequential relief it may be declared that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property.
(2) In brief, the facts as pleaded in the plaint are following : The plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner, in possession of the shop no. 692 situated at Ward No. XI, Chowk Bazar, Chitli Qabar, Jama Masjid, Delhi (hereinafter called as suit property). The plaintiff purchased the suit Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 property from Sh. Nawabudin for a sum of Rs. 60,000/ vide regd. sale deed dt. 18.12.97 regd. as documents no. 6423, book no.1, volume no. 9595 at pages 69 to 76 in the office of Subregistrar, Delhi. The said Nawabudin purchased the suit property from Sh. Majruddin vide regd. sale deed dt. 30.10.1996. Both S/Sh. Nawabudin and Majruddin were Indian National at the time of execution of the said sale deeds. Sh. Majruddin was declared owner of the suit property vide order dt. 20.01.1973 passed by the court of Sh. K.S. Gupta, Sub Judge, Delhi in a suit for declaration filed by Sh. Majruddin. The defendant custodian of enemy property is claiming possession of the suit property after 37 years of issuance of notification number 12/2/65 EPTY dt. 10.09.1965 as the property in question has vested in the Custodian of Enemy property as at one time suit property was owned by some Pakistani National. Since the decree of declaration in favour of Sh. Majruddin was never challenged, the same has become absolute and final and the defendant can not interfere and take possession of the suit property. Also, the suit property has been mutated in the name of Sh. Majruddin in the house tax records of the MCD. Since, the defendant is claiming right, title and interest over the suit property, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. (3) On the other hand, the defendant in his written statement has submitted that the suit is not maintainable since the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The suit is also bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. NCT of Delhi and Union of India. The suit is also not maintainable in view of nonservice of mandatory notice u/s 80 CPC upon the defendant. The suit is also barred under the provision of Enemy Property Act, 1968. The defendant denied all the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the suit property vests in the custodian of Enemy property for India by virtue of notification 12/2/65 EPTY dt. 10.09.1965. Since, as per the said notification all the immovable properties in India belong to Pakistani National become vested in the custodian enemy property for India and continue to remain vested in the Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 defendant under the provision of Enemy Property Act. Also unless the order divesting of the property is made u/s 18 of the Enemy Property Act, as property released vested with the defendant. The declaration which Sh. Majruddin had obtained from the court of the Sub Judge in the year 1973 has been obtained fraudulently by misrepresenting and suppressing true facts. Sh. Majruddin suppressed the facts that the original owner of the suit property i.e. Sh. Haji Nasiruddin migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947 and died in Lahore, thereafter, his children Sh. Karimuddin and Mst. Fathima Khatoon who had also migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947 had obtained a probate in their favour regarding the suit property. The said Sh. Karimuddin and Mst. Fathima Khatoon had migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947 and acquired Pakistani Nationality. A notice or demand dt. 29.12.1997 was issued by the SDM, Darya Ganj which was duly received by the plaintiff on 05.01.1998. As per the Enemy Property Act the sale deed executed qua the suit property are null and void and without any effect. (4) From the pleadings of the parties and hearing, following issues were framed vide order dated 21.04.2004 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court: ISSUES
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the necessary party? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not served any notice on the defendant u/s 80 CPC? OPD
4. Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Enemy Property Act, 1968? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed? OPP
6. Relief.
(5) In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and he relied upon the following documents :
1. Copy of Site Plan as Ex. PW1/1.
Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15
2. Certified copy of Sale deed dt. 18.12.1997 as Ex. PW1/2.
3. Copy of decree and order dt. 20.01.1973 as Ex. PW1/3.
4. Bill issued by the MTNL as Ex. PW1/4.
5. Copy of notice dt. 22.12.2000 as Ex. PW1/5.
6. Receipt of house tax and electricity bills are Ex. PW1/6 & Ex. PW1/7 respectively.
Plaintiff has also examined Sh. Babu Lal, UDC from the office of Subregistrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi who has proved the document sale deed dt. 18.12.1997.
(6) On the other hand, Mrs. S.S. Mukherjee is examined as DW1 on behalf of defendant and she relied upon the following documents :
1. Demand Notice dt. 29.12.1997 as Ex. DW1/1.
2. Letter No. SDM/DG/DC/C/EP/506 dt. 08.06.1998 as Ex. DW1/2. During crossexamination she also produced notification dt. 10.09.1965 as Ex. D1.
(7) Final arguments, as advanced on behalf of plaintiff, are heard. Arguments are not advanced on behalf of defendant despite opportunity granted. (8) Record is perused carefully. Now the issuewise findings of this court are as under : ISSUE No. 1 "Whether the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property? OPD"
The findings on this issue is dependent upon the decision of claim of the parties in respect of the suit property. It has been the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property from Nawabuddin who had purchased it from Sh. Majharuddin who had been declared owner of the suit property vide decree for declaration passed by the court of Sh. K.S. Gupta, Subjudge on 20.01.1973. on the contrary, the defendant pleads that since the probate in respect of estate of Sh. Haji Nasiruddin which included the suit property, was obtained by Sh. Karimuddin and Fatima Khanam from Ld. District Judge, Delhi on 01.04.1964, it Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 is the estate of Pakistani nationals.
Record reveals that this fact is not disputed between the parties that the property was owned by late Sh. Nasiruddin who had died on 12.12.1963. It is the case of the defendant that Sh. Karimuddin and Ms. Fatima Khanam were the son and daughter of Haji Nasiruddin respectively 1.27cmand they had migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition in 1947. The plaintiff did not deny this fact but impliedly admitted this by putting a suggesting to Ms. S.S. Mukharjee DW1 which has been answered as following: "..............it is correct that Sh. Karimuddin and Ms. Fatima Khanam, son and daughter of Haji Nasiruddin had migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition in the year 1947 itself ........"
The plaintiff maintained silence in the pleadings and trial to the fact that Karimuddin and Fatima Khanam had obtained the letter of administration in respect of the estate of Sh. Haji Nasiruddin which included the suit property, from Ld. District Judge, Delhi on 01.04.1964. Even the existence of this letter of administration is not challenged during the cross examination of DW1 Ms. S.S. Mukharjee. Thus, the existence of this decree granting letter of administration is deemed as admitted on the part of the plaintiff. This decree being passed in the exercise of probate jurisdiction, declare the persons in whose favour it has been issued, to be entitled to the property involved, not against any specified person but absolutely and the same is the conclusive proof of such declaration when existence of the title in any such person is in question. (Refer to Sec. 41 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1982) Therefore, the grant of letter of administration in favour of Karimuddin and Fatima Khanam on 01.04.1964 is the conclusive proof of the fact that the suit property belonged to Karimuddin and Fatima Khanam who had migrated to Pakistan in 1947 and were Pakistani nationals as on 01.04.1964 and they continued to be so even on the date of notification Ex. D1 i.e. dt. 10.09.1965. Sh. Majharuddin who is pleaded to have obtained a decree of Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 declaration against Karimuddina and Fatima Khanam from the court of Sh. K.S. Gupta, Subjudge on 20.01.1973, has not been shown and proved to have objected to petition for grant of letter of administration filed by Sh. Karimuddin and Fatima Khanam or to have ever approached to the concerned court or its successor for revocation and annulment of this letter of administration granted despite the specific provision under Sec. 263 provided under Indian Succession Act which more specifically reads as under : "263. Revocation or annulment for just cause. The grant of probate or letter of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause.
Explanation. Just cause shall be deemed to exist where -
a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were
defective in substance; or
b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a
false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or
c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, through such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or
d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or
e) the person to whom the grant was made has willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect.
The plaintiff has presented challenge to the correctness of the grant of letter of administration on the ground that a Pakistani national can not acquire the property in India. This challenge could have been a ground to seek revocation of probate by Majharuddin, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff but he has not preferred to challenge the probate even on this ground. But Majharuddin approached to the court for seeking declaration of ownership against Karimuddin Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 and Fatima Khatoon u/s 34 of Specific Relief Act. It establishes that Sh. Majharuddin had deliberately omitted to obtain the relief under Sec. 263 of Indian Succession Act from the court of probate jurisdiction, whose judgment/decree would have been the conclusive proof of his title, if granted in his favour, against the whole world and thereby he abandoned his claim of ownership of the suit property against the whole world which by necessary implication would have included defendant, except against Sh. Karimuddin and Fatima Khatoon. This decree u/s 34 of Specific Relief Act is binding only on the parties to the suit and persons claiming through them (Sec. 35 of Specific Relief Act, 1963). So, it can be inferred that by such conduct, he allowed Karimuddin and Fatima Khatoon to represent as owner, therefore, Mazharuddin and his successor in interest would be estopped from denying the ownership and title of Karimuddin and Fatima Khatoon in respect of the suit property to any third party which include defendant and as well as Union of India who were not the party to the suit filed by Majharuddin.
Not only this, copy of judgment dated 20011973 Ex PW1/3 show that Late Nasiruddin was asserted to be the grand uncle of Mazharuddin and he was stated to have bequested all his properties at Delhi including the suit property to Mazharuddin by oral will and Sh Karimuddin and Fatima Khanam are alleged to have started claiming share in these properties. So as per the case of Mazharuddin, the intent of will was being objected by Karimuddin and Fatima Khanam. In this case, the appropriate remedy with Mazharuddin was to seek probate which would involve the revocation of letter of administration. It is not explained why this remedy was taken. It smacks fraudulent intent on the part of Mazhruddin.
The defendant has also produced record dated 08061998 Exb DW1/1 addressed to defendant. It shows that demand draft of Rs. 15480/ was received from the tenant Nawabuddin in respect of the suit property towards the Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 rent from 10.09.1965 to 30.11.96. Nawabuddin had been the one from whom the plaintiff is claiming to have purchased the property. By making the payment towards rent to the defendant, Nawabuddin had acknowledged Karimuddin and Fatima Khanam as the true owner of the suit property and himself as tenant. So the plaintiff who has admittedly the successorininterest of Nawabuddin can not make the claim contrary and exceeding the claim of right, title interest of Nawabuddin.
Hence, the title of the suit property for the defendant would continue to lie in Karimuddin and Fatima Khatoon, the Pakistani nationals and the plaintiff being the successor in interest of Mazharuddin is not entitled to maintain the suit against the defendant denying the right, title and interest of Karimuddin and Fatima Khatoon in the suit property to the defendant and asserting the title of Mazharuddin.
Consequently, the issue under consideration is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 2"Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the necessary party? OPD"
Onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendant.
It is the well settled law that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and one can be said as a necessary party if there is any right to some relief against that party in respect of the controversy involved and if no effective decree can be passed in absence of such party.
This proposition of law is not disputed but admitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the custodian, enemy property for India is not vested with any title in respect of the property under The Enemy Property Act, 1968 but it has the limited authority as provided under the Act also for taking the measures as he considers necessary or expedient for preserving such property or incurring such expenditure Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 out of such property as he considers necessary for maintenance of an individual enemy subject or of his family in India. Some of the functions of the custodian have been illustrated in Sec. 8(2) of The Enemy Property Act, 1968 (hereinafter called as the Act). Thus, it is deemed admitted stand of the plaintiff that the power of vesting and divesting the property lies with the central Government and not with the custodian. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff also pleaded in para no. 9 of the plaint that the property in question has vested in custodian of enemy property in India. It presupposes the backing of the central government. By filing the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking declaration that he is the sole and absolute owner in possession of the suit property which has the implication of challenging the act of Government of declaration of vesting of the suit property in custodian being property of Pakistani nationals or divesting the property from the defendant which could be directed only by the Central Government. Reference in this regard may be made to Sec. 18 of the Act which reads as under : "The Central Government may, be general or special order, direct that any enemy property vested in the Custodian under this Act and remaining with him shall be divested from him and be returned, in such manner as may be prescribed, to the owner thereof or to such other person as may be specified in the direction and thereupon such property shall cease to vest in the Custodian and shall revest in such owner or other person."
Considering these facts and provisions of the Act, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has a material right to seek relief against Central Government and the presence of the same is required and necessary for adjudication for the controversies involved. Hence, the Central Govt./ UOI is the necessary party to the present suit and nonjoinder of the same makes the suit bad. The issue under consideration is therefore decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant accordingly.
Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 ISSUE No. 3 "Whether the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not served any notice on the defendant u/s 80 CPC? OPD"
Onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendant. It is admitted on behalf of the plaintiff that no mandatory notice u/s 80 CPC is given to the defendant. But the record shows that plaintiff had moved an application seeking exemption from sending the notice u/s 80 CPC, which has not been decided till date. Plaintiff had sent the application dt. 22.12.2000 Ex. PW1/5 to defendant which mentions the facts of the present case so the same can be treated as a notice. Hence, the application seeking exemption seeking is allowed and the issue under consideration is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.ISSUE No. 4
"Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Enemy Property Act, 1968? OPD"
The onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendant.
The discussion has been made while deciding issue no.1 to the effect that as on 01.04.1964, the letter of administration was granted in favour of Pakistani nationals and the same remained unchallenged, unrevoked even till the date of the filing of the suit. Hence, since 01.04.1964 till date, the suit property belongs to Pakistani nationals. The DW1 Mrs. S.S. Mukherjee has also produced notification dated 10.09.1965 as Ex.D1 vide which the properties of Pakistani nationals have been ordered to be vested in custodian of enemy property for India with immediate effect. Defendant has also proved to have acted upon the information received from the SDM vide letter dated 05.09.1975 Ex.DW1/2. Thus, the act of the defendant is found to be done in good faith and under the Enemy Property Act, 1968. Thus, the onus shifts upon the plaintiff to prove the contrary or malafide on the part of the defendant to maintain the suit against the Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 provisions of Section19 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 which provides as under, specifically under the circumstances when it has been the admitted case of the plaintiff that the suit property is being claimed to have vested into custodian of enemy property for India.
"19. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central "Government or the Custodian or an Inspector of Enemy Property for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act."
But the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to counter the good faith on the part of the defendant or that his act was one which was not intended to be done under this Act. Hence, the defendant is held to have proved that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provision of Enemy Property Act, 1968 and the issue is decided in favour of the defendant accordingly.
ISSUE No. 5"Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed? OPP"
The onus to prove this issue lies upon the plaintiff. Substantially, the plaintiff seeking decree of declaration in two parts - firstly declaration that he is the sole and absolute owner in respect of the suit property and secondly, that defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property.
So far as the first part is concerned, for the discussions and findings made/ arrived while deciding issue no.1, the plaintiff is held not entitled for the decree of declaration to the effect that he is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property.
In order to seek the decision in his favour in respect of the second part of the declaration, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that suit property is not an enemy property and that the suit property does not vest in the defendant Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 and the suit property has not been transferred before or after the commencement of the Act to evade or defeat the vesting of the property. Now, this Court shall examine the record in respect of these facts.
The discussion has been made while deciding issue no.1 to the effect that as on 01.04.1964, the letter of administration was granted in favour of Pakistani nationals and the same remained unchallenged, unrevoked even till the date of the filing of the suit. Hence, since 01.04.1964 till date, the suit property belongs to Pakistani nationals. The Defence of India Rules, 1962 made u/S. 36 Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 came into force w.e.f. 05.11.1962. Rule 133V interalia provided that the Central Government was authorized to appoint custodian of enemy property for India to preserve enemy property. Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 was repealed by Sec. 48 of Defence of India Act, 1962. The 1962 Rules, however made under the Defence of India Ordinance 1962 were deemed to be rules under the Defence of India Act. Thereafter, the Government of India in exercise of powers under subrule (1) of Rule 133V issued the Enemy Property (Custody & Registration) Order, 1962. In the year 1965 hostilities between India and Pakistan broke out and on 11.09.1965 the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) order 1965 was issued by Government of India. The effect of the order was that all immovable properties in India belonging to or held by or manged on behalf of Pakistani nationals stood vested in the custodian of Enemy Property in India with immediate effect. Section2(c) of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 provided that the enemy property means any property for the time being belonging to or held or managed on behalf of an enemy, enemy subject or an enemy firm and the term "enemy" or "enemy subject" or "enemy firm" is defined u/S. 2(b) of this Act as a person or country who or which was an enemy, enemy subject or an enemy firm, as may be under Defence of India Act, 1962 and Defence of India Rule, 1962 but does not mean Citizen of India. So, the suit property belonging to Pakistani nationals as on 01.04.1964 till date which Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 included the year 1965, can be safely inferred as the enemy property. Hence, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the suit property is not the enemy property.
In order to substantiate the fact that the suit property does not vest in the defendant, plaintiff has contended heavily that since no information to revenue authorities and subregistrar about vesting of property in Custodian is not made, no vesting has takenplace in substance. But record reveals that the plaintiff has not summoned the entire record of the suit property from revenue authority and SubRegistrar and contents himself by producing the record of Sale Deed executed in his favour in the year 1997. So, this Court is of the opinion that such inference, as suggested on behalf of the plaintiff, cannot be drawn without the perusal of the relevant record. So, this contention is of no consequence.
Further, it has been the contention of the plaintiff that the vesting period of the suit property with the defendant, as per the case of the defendant, has been w.e.f. 10.09.1965 to 26.09.1977 and since there could not be automatic vesting of the suit property into the custodian, second relief should be granted. This court finds that this contention is hypothetical as in the WS itself, more specifically in para no. 1 of reply on merits, the defendant has pleaded that the suit property has vested in defendant by virtue of notification no. 12/2/65 EPTY dt. 10.09.1965 issued by Government of India Rules, 1962. In the presence of such specific averment, this court is at loss why the plaintiff is assuming the vesting period of the property with defendant w.e.f. 10.09.1965 to 26.09.1977.
The plaintiff has stressed heavily upon the letter dt. 05.09.1975 issued from the office of Tehsildar Ex. DW1/2 and contended that since the information about the suit property being an enemy property is received by custodian firstly in 1975, the date of vesting can not be a date prior to this. This contention itself explains that letter only gives the date of information sent to the custodian and it is not the date of declaration of vesting of the suit property into Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 the defendant or date of declaration of the suit property as in enemy property. The property would stand vested in the defendant from the date of the declaration of vesting and not from the date of information. It is correct that in this letter in last para, NaibTehsildar had simultaneously requested for declaration of the suit property as enemy property under Enemy Property Act. But the title of the letter is "Niman Likhit Shatru Sampati Ki Janch Hetu" (For inquiry of following Enemy properties) and the title of the cover letter addressing to custodian of Enemy property begins with words "Enemy properties number..........". It suggests that the suit property had already been declared as enemy property and prayer made by NaibTehsildar in his report for declaration of property as the Enemy property might be result of incorrect phraseology. In the covering letter also, the detailed report of Enemy properties for further necessary action is stated to be submitted and request is made to communicate the decision of necessary authorization by Tehsildar. This proposition of law is not disputed by the plaintiff that the custodian of enemy property has no power to declare a property as enemy property and he had the limited power to supervise and manage the property vested into him. So, it can be inferred that since the prayer of Tehsildar made in covering letter is not specifically for the declaration of the suit property as enemy property in continuation of prayer of NaibTehsildar and even such declaration can not be made by defendant and he has referred the property himself as enemy property and he has requested for decision with authorization, the declaration of the suit property as enemy property was not sought from defendant and the prayer to custodian to take the decision was limited to take decision in respect of his statutory powers/authority and to grant authorization to Tehsildar to take necessary steps.
But still the question arises when the suit property was identified and prescribed as enemy property by way of notification or order passed by the government. Prudently, this can be proved by record of Union of India only. So Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 far as the defendant is concerned, the information of vesting of any property into him is sufficient to act upon. In the present suit in hand, Union of India has not been impleaded as party though surprisingly, the plaintiff had sent the letter dated 22.12.2000 to the Deputy Secretary (Commerce) through whom Union of India should be summoned and served. It suggests the deliberate omission on the part of plaintiff to implead Union of India as a necessary party. It has by necessary implication to prevent the relevant and necessary facts, documents and evidence to come on record. Thus, for want of sufficient evidence and necessary party, it cannot be proved and decided when the suit property was described as enemy property by way of notification or the order passed by the Government and for deliberate omission on the part of plaintiff to implead Union of India as a party, the plaintiff cannot be given any advantage.
Hence, the plaintiff is not held entitled for second part of declaration as well and the issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE No. 6Relief In view of the decision of the other issues, plaintiff is held entitled for no relief and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on th this 26 day of July, 2016 at 04.00 p.m. ( AANCHAL ) CIVIL JUDGE07(CENTRAL) DELHI/26.07.2016 RB Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15 CS No. 25/16 26.07.2016 Present : None for the parties.
Ahlmad has placed the file being traced.
Now, put up for judgment at 04.00 p.m. ( AANCHAL ) CIVILJUDGE07(CENTRAL) DELHI/26.07.2016 At 04.00 p.m. Present : None for the parties.
Vide separate judgment passed on even date, plaintiff is held entitled for no relief and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to Record Room.
( AANCHAL ) CIVILJUDGE07(CENTRAL) DELHI/26.07.2016 Mohd. Rehan Vs. The Custodian Enemy Suit No. 25/16 Page 14/15