Delhi District Court
Sh. Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal vs (1) Smt. Chandro Devi on 13 December, 2014
Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. G. N. PANDEY
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 05/14
Case I.D. Number : 02402C0311912012
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal
S/o Late Sh. Sultan Singh
R/o 736/3, Jheel Khuranja,
Delhi110051 .......Appellant
VERSUS
(1) Smt. Chandro Devi
W/o Late Sh. Phool Singh
(2) Lal Bahadur
S/o Late Sh. Phool Singh
Both R/o Municipal No. 736/3,
( Khasra No. 275/84/1), Jheel Khuranja,
Delhi110051.
(3) Delhi Development Authority
Through its chairman,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,
New Delhi. ......Respondents
RCA No. 05/14 page 1 of 17
Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors
Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
Date of Institution of Appeal : 01.11.2012
Received in this Court : 16.01.2014
Date of Arguments : 04.12.2014
Date of Judgment/Order : 13.12.2014
Decision : Appeal dismissed with cost
J U D G M E N T
1. The present appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 27.09.12 passed by Ld. SCJ Cum Rent Controller(N/E), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in suit No. 204/08 whereby the suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of property bearing No. 276/84/1, Jheel Khuranja, Delhi51 ( hereinafter called the suit property ) filed by the plaintiff / appellant against the defendants/respondents has been dismissed. The parties are hereinafter being referred to by their respective status before the trial court.
2. The brief and relevant facts in the background of which the present suit was filed by the plaintiff is reproduced from the impugned judgment as follows: (I) Defendant No. 1 is the wife of plaintiff's brother and defendant No. 2 is the nephew of plaintiff; that on 01.01.1918, a lease was granted towards a piece of land admeasuring 1668 Sq. yards at Chiragh, south BlockC, Khasra No. 275/84/1, 276/84/1 and 277/84/1 in favour of Sh. Dule S/o Sh. Kishan Chauhan; that on 06.09.1940, an indenture was executed by Delhi Improvement Trust and RCA No. 05/14 page 2 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. aforesaid land was given to Sh. Dule; that defendant No. 3 came into existence in the year 1958 and the entire land including the aforesaid plots came under the title of defendant No. 3; that Sh. Dule passed away leaving behind his sons Sh. Lehari Singh and Sultan Singh and both came to possess the aforesaid plot of land in Khasra No. 275/84/1, 276/84/1 and 277/84/1 and became legal lease holders of the same; that Sh. Sultan Singh also passed away leaving behalf his two sons namely Sh. Phool Singh and Sh. Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal ( plaintiff herein) and as per procedure of law, the aforesaid three plots were mutated in revenue records in the name of Sh. Lehari Singh, Sh. Phool Singh and plaintiff( being lease holders); that on 04.10.195657 a settlement was effected whereby the plot in Khasra No. 275/84/1 came to the undivided share of Phool Singh and Mohan Singh, plot in Khasra No. 277/84/1 came under the share of Sh. Lahari Singh; that piece of land in Khasra No. 276/81/1( old MCD No. 172) was to remain vacant, whereupon the aforesaid parties jointly constructed many shops, super structure and godowns etc.; that it was settled that any income accruing from the same would be distributed between the said two families; that the settlement arrived at continued smoothly, till Phool Singh remained alive; that after death of Phool Singh in the year 2001, his wife Chandro Devi( defendant No. 1) in collusion with defendant No. 2 and others dishonestly stopped paying rent and profits to the plaintiff and also extended threats of creation of third partly interest in the piece of land in Khasra No. 276/84/1, Jheel Khuranja, Delhi( hereinafter referred to his suit property and also shown in red RCA No. 05/14 page 3 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. colour in the site plan) (II) It is further stated that on 09.12.07, plaintiff called a meeting with family of defendant No. 1 over the issue of suit property; that defendants came to the plaintiffs house but disagreed to distribute any profits or rent accruing from the shops and other structures over suit property; on one pretext or the other; that defendant No. 1 also intimated plaintiff that the was the sole owner of the suit property; that defendant No. 1 showed papers concerning mutation proceedings of suit property; that plaintiff approached defendant No. 3 and came to know that to grab share of plaintiff in the suit property, defendant No. 1 and 2 produced various fabricated documents with defendant No. 3 and were trying to mutate suit property in their own names; that plaintiff approached defendant no. 3 to stop the entire mutation proceedings and also issued a legal notice u/s 80 CPC dt. 04.03.08; that defendants quarreled with plaintiff for such intervention of plaintiff with defendant no. 3; that vide an application before DDA through RTI, plaintiff received copy of will of deceased Sh. Phool Singh and found the same as forged documents produced by defendant No. 1; that the noting in revenue record of the property including the suit property shows tampering done by defendants and not showing the rights of plaintiff as cosharer. (III) It is further stated that on 12.03.08, again defendant No. 1 and 2 started quarreling with plaintiff and threatened him to create third party interest in the suit property to which plaintiff sent a legal notice upon defendants on 13.03.08 through registered AD and UPC; that defendant No. 1 and 2 are malafidely RCA No. 05/14 page 4 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. attempting to grab the share of the plaintiff by illegal means though, plaintiff has an undivided share in the suit property. Therefore, a prayer for declaration that the plaintiff is having 25 % undivided lease hold rights in property in Khasra No. 276/84/1, MCD No. 736/2, Jheel Khranja, Delhi. Declaration is further sought to get the will of late Sh. Phool Singh in favour of defendant No. 1, declared as forged and fabricated document and the transaction in favour of defendant No. 1 or any third person on the basis of the said forged will as null and void. Relief of injunction against the defendant No. 1 to 2 restraining them from creating thrid party interest or alienating or selling the same without written consent of plaintiff is prayed. A prayer for mandatory injunction against defendant No. 3 directing defendant No. 3 to stop all mutation proceedings in favour of defendants and to make necessary corrections in revenue records is also made.
(IV) Summons of the suit were served on the defendants. Defendant No. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing of WS. After the plaint was amended, defendant failed amended WS and took preliminary objections. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable as no proof of ownership for seeking declaration is filed by plaintiff; that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has tried to fabricate a document to create his share in the property; that the document belong to the year 195859 in respect of Khasra No. 275/84/1, 276/84/1 and 277/84/1 and certain portion showing the report of officer concerned in said documents show only an attempt to erase the said portion, mentioning how RCA No. 05/14 page 5 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. these khasra numbers were transferred amongst co owners and who in turn , further transferred by way of family settlement and by means of orders of court; that three piece of land bearing Khasra No. 275/84/1, 276/84/1 and 277/84/1 in the name of Late Sh. Dule as lessee were issued by Dy. Commissioner of Delhi on 01.01.1918; that Sh. Dule died and left behind two sons Sh. Lehri and Sh. Sultan Singh, who became the owners in respect of the aforesaid three pieces of lands; that Sultan Singh got expired leaving behind his sons Phool Singh and Mohan Singh; that the lease was extended uptil 31.12.1957; that a family settlement was arrived at in respect of plots in Khasra No. 276/84/1 and 277/84/1 whereby it fell to the share of Phool Singh and Mohan Singh and the said settlement is also entered at entry No. 532 in Khasra and Khatoni; that as per settlement, Om Prakash, Ram Avtar and Sat Prakash were entitled for repayment of loan given by them to Sh. Lehri and Sultan Singh, which was repaid by executing the plot in Khara No. 276/84/1 in favour of Om Prakash, Ram Avtar and Sat Prakash and the transfer was executed vide sale deed on 21.09.1961 by Sh. Lehri Singh in favour of the aforesaid Om Prakash, Ram Avtar and Sat Prakash transferred the same in favour of Sh. Ganpat Rai S/o Sh. Chatrumal, Hira S/o Sh. Lehri Singh and Smt. Rampyari W/o Sh. Jai Chand on 05.10.1967; that Sh. Ganpat died in the year 1986 leaving behind three sons namely Sh. Jai Chand, Babu Ram and Rameshwar Dayal; that Sh. Jai Chand having 1/9th share and Smt. Rampyari having 1/3th share was purchased by Sh. Phool Singh, husband of defendant No. 1 on 20.08.1990 and the remaining 1/9 th RCA No. 05/14 page 6 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. share each in the said plot in Khasra No. 276/84/1 was disposed off by Sh. Babu Ram and Smt. Shanti Devi w/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal to different persons; that the other co owners Sh. Hira, owner of 1/3th share in the said plot died in the year 1993 leaving behind two sons Sh. Lekhraj and Sh. Jagmal; that Sh. Lekhraj also died leaving behind Sh. Dharmender, Jogender and Mahender, they all disposed off their respective shares to different persons and hence, the question of any share of plaintiff in suit property does not arise. (V) It is further contended that plaintiff is very much aware of all the transfers duly registered with authorities but has filed the present suit to create harassment to defendants and thus, has no locus standi to claim his share; that the entire case of plaintiff is based on agreement dt. 04.10.195657 but the said agreement is not filed on record by plaintiff; that para 10 of the plaint is also denied. It is submitted that the name was deleted on the basis of facts mentioned in revenue records and does not give any cause of action to plaintiff. All other allegations made in the plaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit with costs.
(VI) Defendant No. 3DDA contested the suit by filing the WS raising preliminary objections that plaintiffs has no valid cause of action to file the present suit; that suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has not served the statutory notice U/s 53B of DDA Act prior to filing of present suit; plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the materials facts; that defendant No. 3 Lehri Singh S/o Dule was having ½ share in suit property and RCA No. 05/14 page 7 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. Phool Singh and Mohan Singh were having their ½ share as a lessee in property bearing Khasra No. 275/84/1, 276/84/1 and 277/84/1 of Chiragah South Revenue Eastate in Kheel Khuranja till 01.09.1961; that vide mutation No. 532 dt. 01.09.1961, Khasra No. 275/84/1 was mutated in the name of Sh. Phool Singh and Sh. Mohan Singh having their share in the said property, which was mutated in their name as per directions of the court in suit No. 31 decided on 10.02.1959 and remaining Khasra No. 276/84/1 and 277/84/1 were mutated in the name of Sh. Lehri Singh.
On merits, it is submitted that vide mutation No. 532 dt. 01.09.1961, Khasra No. 275/84/1 was mutated in the name of Sh. Phool Singh and Sh. Mohan Singh as per Court's direction; that defendant No. 3 has no concern with the family affairs of parties as para No. 4 pertains to defendant No. 1 and 2; that para No. 5 to 8 of the plaint are denied for want of knowledge; that in respect of mutation of 276/84/1, the lease of the same has expired and further mutation cannot be decided till the lease is restored. All other allegations made in the plaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit.
3. The defendants proceeded ex parte before Ld. Trial Court and after recording of the plaintiff as the only witness, the Ld. Trial Judge dismissed this suit of the plaintiff.
4. The appellant has preferred the instant appeals on the ground that the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2012 is not sustainable in law and facts and is passed without application of judicial mind. It is further contended RCA No. 05/14 page 8 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. that the impugned judgment and decree is not passed on the basis of the admitted and proved facts in view of the defendants remaining ex parte and the judgment suffers from illegality and infirmity. As mentioned the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the correct facts of the case. It is further mentioned that the suit was filed well within period of limitation as the plaintiff was not aware regarding the same of the part portion of the suit property to Arjun Kumar in 1999 and remaining part purchased on 07.03.08. The plaintiff have 1/4th share in the suit property i.e. property Khasra No. 276/84/1, CBlock, Chiragh South Jheel Khuraja, Delhi measuring 56 sq. yards. The defendants did not produce the documents despite application U/o13 Rule 1 CPC and the Ld. Trial Court did not take adverse inference of the same. The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective and reached to wrong conclusion; the Ld. Trial Judge has not applied his mind and disposed off the suits without following due process of law and considering the relevant aspects. This appeal is filed praying to set aside the impugned judgment and decree.
5. The respondents did not wish to file reply to the appeal.
6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, respondent as well as Ld. Counsel for Arjun Kumar i.e. bona fide purchaser of the suit property and gone through the trial court records.
7. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer relevant provisions of law regarding declaration and injunction i.e. Section 34, 38 and 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 which is as below: RCA No. 05/14 page 9 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
Section34 Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, many institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit asked for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of the title, omits to do so.
Explanation A trustee of property is a person interested to deny a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be trustee.
Section 38. Perpetual injunction when granted. (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
Section39 Mandatory injunctions When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of RCA No. 05/14 page 10 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.
8. Section 38 of Specific Relief Act enables the court to grant perpetual injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of applicant, whether expressed or implied. Meaningly, the question is to be examined as to whether there exists an obligation in favour of the applicant and if the answer is in affirmative and the case falls within the ambit of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act an injunction cannot be granted. It is also necessary to mention that rights and obligations are corollary each other and the right places a correspondence duty also for its existence. The injunction is a discretionary relief and its grant of refusal depends upon the circumstances and facts of a particular case. The discretion has to be reasonable guided by judicial principles and law. It must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act enumerates the cases where an injunction will be denied.
9. As held in JT 1994 (6) SC 588 , interest of right not shown to be in existence cannot be protected by injunction. Issuance of order of an injunction is absolutely discretionary and equitable relief. In a given set of facts, injunction may be given to protect the possession of the owner or person in lawful possession. It is not mandatory that for mere asking such relief should be given.
Injunction is a personal right under Section 41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the plaintiff must have personal interest in the matter. The interest or RCA No. 05/14 page 11 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. right not shown to be in existence cannot be protected by injunction.
10. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit before the trial court in the form of plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit for partition, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. As held in Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, "A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
'' 8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case visavis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit "
RCA No. 05/14 page 12 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi.
preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
11. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines " burden of proof" and laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. In view of Section 103 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lied on any particular person. Further, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings. As held in judgment reported as Uttam Chand Kothari Vs. Gauri Shankar Jalan, AIR 2007 Gau. 20, admission in the written statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. In view of this legal position of the Evidence Act, it is clear that it is for the appellant to prove that the appellant is the owner and the respondent have no right, title or interest in the suit property.
12. The plaintiff has prayed for decree of declaration for being declared 25% RCA No. 05/14 page 13 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. share in the suit property and declare the Will of late Sh. Phool Singh in favour of the defendant No. 1 as forged and fabricated. It is also prayed that defendant be restrained from creating any third party interest with defendant No. 3/DDA be restrained from mutating the property. No evidence has been led by the defendants as stated and therefore Ld. Counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that the case of the plaintiff is admitted. This court does not find any basis of this argument as the plaintiff was under obligation to prove his case in accordance with law for grant of any relief. Moreover, there is no admission by the defendant in the WS and the contentions of the plaintiff in the plaint along with his ownership is denied. The DDA on the other hand contended that till 01.09.1961, Lehri Singh had ½ share whereas Phool Singh and Sh. Mohan Singh both sons of Sultan Singh had ½ share as lessee in property bearing Khasra numbers 275/84/1, 276/84/1 and 277/84/1 vide mutation No. 532 dated 01.09.06, Khasra No. 275/84/1 was mutated in the name of Mohan Singh and Phool Singh as per the direction of the court in suit No. 31 decided on 10.02.59 and remaining Khasra No. 276/84/1 and 277/84/1 were mutated in the name of Lehri Singh.
13. As noted the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. The lease of the property by the Delhi Improvement Trust dated 06.09.40 is admitted by the parties. The plaintiff has relied upon one settlement as per which Khasra No. 276/84/1 remained vacant and on the said basis the relief of declaration is prayed by the plaintiff in this suit. As rightly noted no RCA No. 05/14 page 14 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. documentary evidence is placed on record regarding settlement as above noted nor any of the concerned persons associated with the settlement has been produced by the plaintiff to prove this fact. The findings of the Ld. Trial Court regarding this suit of the plaintiff being barred by limitation is also sufficiently explained and analyzed in the impugned judgment. The mutation of the property bearing Khasra No. 276/84/1 as above noted in the name of Lehri Singh was never challenged by the plaintiff. As per the trial court record, the plaintiff has not placed any document to prove his claim of ¼ share in the suit property and therefore the Ld. Trial Court appears to be right in rejecting his claim. As the plaintiff failed to prove any right, title or interest, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in rejecting his claim by the Ld. Trial Court. Merely, filing of the case and oral averments even if other party is ex parte does not amount that the case is proved as per law. In the considered opinion of this court, the plaintiff failed to prove his case and discharge the onus. The Ld. Trial Court was accordingly right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
14. The pleadings of the parties and evidence on record reveals that the appellant/plaintiff categorically failed to prove the ownership of the suit land in view of the contention in the pleadings. The appellant failed to prove the ownership or the possession thereof. The ratio of judgment reported as 1982 (1) RCR 637 is squarely applicable in the facts of this case. Further, as held in Subhra Mukharjee Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1203, the party which makes the allegation must prove it. The appellant has failed to produce RCA No. 05/14 page 15 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. any oral or documentary evidence to prove the contentions. Undisputedly, the burden lies on the appellant to establish such facts.
15. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2003) 8 SCC 752. As held: Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil of testing of " proved", " disproved" and " not proved" as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the valuation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that makes the difference. In a suit for possession of property based on title, if the plaintiff creates a high degree of probability of his title to ownership, instead of proving his title beyond any reasonable doubts, that would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant. If the defendant fails to shift back the onus, the plaintiffs burden of proof would stand discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title.
The present case being a civil one, the plaintiff could not be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to have RCA No. 05/14 page 16 of 17 Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors Sh. G. N. Pandey Additional District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. been discharged. In the opinion of this Court the plaintiff has succeeded in shifting the onus on the defendant and therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood discharged.
The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
16. The testimony of the witnesses, pleadings of the parties and the documents on record, it is established that the Ld. Trial Court has examined the facts of the case in proper perspective. Mere oral averments by the appellant is not sufficient to prove the case. This court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2012 which is well reasoned/correct appreciation of facts and in accordance with the provisions of law. The impugned judgment is therefore entitled to be upheld. There is no merit or substance in these appeals which are liable to be dismissed. The appeal is therefore dismissed with cost.
17. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
18. Trial Court records be sent along with copy of this judgment after placing the judgment in file.
19. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court
on this 13th day of December, 2014 G. N. Pandey
Addl. District Judge02 (NE)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
RCA No. 05/14 page 17 of 17
Mohan Singh @ Mohan Lal V/s Chandro Devi & Ors