Delhi District Court
Also At: vs Sh. Yogesh Saroha on 26 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH SUNIL K. AGGARWAL:ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
(CENTRAL) 10: DELHI
Suit No. 28/04/11
Sh. P. A. Choudhary,
S/o Late Sh. Ranga Nayakulu,
R/o 1123, Supreme Enclave,
Mayur Vihar, PhaseI,
Delhi110091.
Also at:
93, BHEL Enclave, Akbar Road,
Secunderabad500009. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Yogesh Saroha
S/o Sh. C. S. Saroha,
R/o A7, Indira Enclave, Near
Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Shyam Sunder Kaushik,
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh,
R/o 576, Village Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi.
3. Freedom Fighters Cultural Centre,
(A society under the Societies Registration Act)
B15, Village Neb Sarai,
Mehrauli, Delhi
(through its General Secretary Sh. Rati Ram)
R/o 142, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi110030.
4. Sh. Bishamber Dayal (since deceased)
(through his legal heirs)
Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 1 of 17
(a) Mrs. Tarawati : Widow
W/o Lt Sh. Bishamber Dayal
(b) Mrs. Geeta
Daughter of late Sh. Bishamber Dayal
Both R/o : Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli : Daughter
New Dehi - 110 030
5. Shri Shobha Ram
S/o Sh. late Sh. Badlu Ram
R/o Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli,
New Dehi - 110 030
6. Shri Prema Nand
S/o Sh. late Sh. Badlu Ram
R/o Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli,
New Dehi - 110 030
7. Shri Darshan Singh
S/o Sh. late Sh. Badlu Ram
R/o Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli,
New Dehi - 110 030
8. Smt. Shanti Devi
W/o Sh. Sh. Chander Bhan
& D/o late Sh. Badlu Ram
R/o Village Pehladpur, Bangar,
New Dehi - 110 030
9. Smt. Shanti Devi
W/o late Sh. Badlu Ram
R/o Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli
New Delhi 110 030. ....Defendants
Plaint presented on 19.01.2000
J U D G M E N T:
1. This suit for recovery of possession of plot no. D135 measuring 200 Sq. yards in Khasra No. 34 in Freedom Fighters Cultural Centre, Village Neb Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 2 of 17 Sarai, Mehrauli, New Delhi, hereinafter called 'the suit property', has been filed under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 contending that the plaintiff as a member of the defendant no. 3 society was in actual physical possession of the suit property from 20.07.1987 until November, 1999 when he was illegally dispossessed by the defendants and particularly the defendants no. 1 & 2. Sh. Badlu Ram was Bhumidar in respect of land comprised in Khasra no. 34, Khata no. 136 measuring 4 bigha 6 biswa in the Revenue Estate of Neb Sarai. On his demise on 08.07.1985, the said land descended upon his male lineal descendants i.e. defendant no. 4 to 7. Defendants no. 8 is the daughter of Late Sh. Badlu Ram while defendant no. 9 is his wife.
2 With a view to establish a Freedom Fighters' Cultural Centre and a residential colony of its members, the defendant no. 3 Society was founded by Prof. N.G. Ranga, Member of Parliament. The defendant no. 3 had purchased 44 acres of land in village Neb Sarai including the land inherited by defendant no. 4 to 7 and enrolled about 500 members collecting large amounts of money from them towards costs and land development charges. On realizing that the price of their land offered by defendant no. 3 would be much higher than they would receive from Central Government on its acquisition, since notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of The Land Acquisition Act had already been promulgated, the defendant no. 4 to 7 had executed an agreement to sell dated 21.04.1987 in favour of defendant no. 3 for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/ and delivered the actual vacant physical possession of the suit property to the society which was confirmed by an affidavit of the same date as no sale deed could have been executed and registered. The defendant no. 4 to 7 thus had divested themselves of all their rights in the suit property.
Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 3 of 17
3. The notifications under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the suit property were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 18.11.1988 which order was confirmed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India on 20.09.1991. The defendant no. 3 thereafter leveled the land by breaking hilly tracks and laid roads, demarcated the residential plots over the land purchased by it, erected boundary walls besides earmarking the sewerage and culverts. The matter was taken up with Chief Town Planner, MCD for approval of layout plan in April, 1987. Many members of defendant no. 3 had constructed their houses on their allotted plots and started residing there. Khsara no. 34 measuring 4 bigha 6 biswas of the colony was purely residential and in physical possession of defendant no. 3. Various letters were written by it to the government for providing amenities and regularization of colony which show that the suit property formed contiguous part of the land occupied by defendant no. 3.
4. Plaintiff was allotted the suit property on 20.07.1987 pursuant to his membership application dated 27.03.1987. The allotment card however was issued on 12.05.1996. The plaintiff had paid the initial amount to defendant no. 3 for the allotment of plot and had also made payments subsequently including for construction of boundary wall. The plaintiff became member of Resident's Welfare Association of Freedom Fighters Enclave on 21.03.1993.
5. Defendant no. 8 after three years of death of her father, projected a Will in her favour in respect of half of khasra no. 34 and got mutation affected in the Revenue Records vide order dated 26.11.1988 to that extent without complying with the legal requirements or affecting prior publication. She had earlier filed a suit for injunction against her four brothers, step mother and Sh. Rati Ram on 17.03.1988 much prior whereto the land had been sold to defendant no. 3 on 21.04.1987. The Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 4 of 17 defendant no. 4 to 7 had categorically stated therein about the sale of entire land to defendant no. 3 with delivery of physical possession and that their father was chronic TB and Asthma patient and was regularly receiving treatment from Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS two years prior to his death. They had further claimed the alleged Will to be forged as their father had never executed any Will.
6. On becoming aware of the mutation of part of land of Khasra no. 34 in favour of defendant no. 8, defendant no. 3 had filed suit no. 11/90 for declaring mutation to be illegal, void and nullity, on 31.12.1989 and for being declared as the owner of the said land. The relief of permanent injunction was also sought. The defendant no. 8 claimed to be in physical possession of the land in question in her written statement filed in the said suit despite the fact that there was no division of the property by metes and bounds and the land of khasra no. 34 was no longer identifiable due to heavy construction in the area which obliterated the boundary marks. During the pendency of the suit wherein veracity of the Will was pending adjudication, defendant no. 8 surreptitiously agreed to sell 2 bigha 3 biswa of land in khasra no. 34 allegedly in her possession to defendants no. 1 & 2. The said agreement dated 21.08.1990 has no legal existence being in violation of Section 52 of The Transfer of Property Act.
7. Defendant no. 1 & 2 have filed a suit for specific performance and injunction against defendant no. 8 and Sh. Rati Ram, who was the General Secretary of defendant no. 3, on 25.08.1993. Despite Sh. Rati Ram making it plain that the possession of the demised property was with defendant no. 3, its impleadment was not sought and rather Sh. Rati Ram was deleted from the array of parties on 08.11.1995. A fraudulent and collusive decree was obtained by defendant no. 1 & 2 against defendant no. 8 by suppressing the material facts. Plaintiff came to know of Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 5 of 17 the decree only in November, 1999 when he was dispossessed from the suit property by defendant no. 1 & 2 by breaking the brickwall constructed by the plaintiff. It is claimed that the defendants had no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, who was continuously enjoying its possession from 1987 through defendant no. 3 as its associate member, without due process of law. The suit therefore has been filed within six months of being dispossessed.
8. In his written statement defendant no. 1 has taken preliminary objections as to the maintainability of suit. It is stated that the plaintiff had never been in actual physical possession of the suit property at any point of time, therefore, it is not maintainable U/s 6 of The Specific Relief Act. There was no question of dispossession of plaintiff in November, 1999 when defendants no. 1 and 2 are in actual physical possession of the property since 26.08.1990 immediately on execution of agreement to sell by the Bhumidar, defendant no. 8 in their favour. The claim of plaintiff of being in possession through defendant no. 3 since 1987 is vague as he chose not to disclose the date and manner of being put into actual possession of the suit property by defendant no. 3. It is contended that Civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter as the suit land is governed by the Provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 & Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. The Revenue Assistant alone is therefore, competent to decide whether the possession of defendants no. 1 and 2 over the suit property is in accordance with law or otherwise. The plaintiff claims his possession of the suit property through defendant no. 3 society since 1987 as per allotment card no. 269 dated 12.05.1996. In the appeal filed by defendant no. 3 under Section 64 of Delhi Rent Revenue Act, defendant no. 3 claimed itself to be in possession of the land since 1992. It is further claimed by the said defendant that it had acquired this titled and possession of the land from defendant no. 8. The claim of plaintiff thus is apparently false. Even otherwise, the Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 6 of 17 land admeasuring 2 bigha, 3 biswas out of total land of 4 bigha 6 biswas of khasra no. 34, Village Neb Sarai, Mehrauli, New Delhi was mutated in favour of defendant no. 8 on 26.11.1988. Challenge to subsequent mutation thereof in favour of defendants no. 1 & 2 vide order dated 26.03.1999 is not maintainable by defendant no. 3 without challenging the mutation in favour of defendant no. 8. Defendant no. 3 is also making contradictory claims in respect of the suit property. In a petition under Section 85 of The Delhi Land Reform Act, defendant no. 3 claims to be in adverse possession of land in question since the lifetime of Sh. Badlu Ram. In another proceedings, it claims to have acquired the same from defendants no. 4 to 7.
9. The land in question was under acquisition by the Central Government when defendant no. 3 alleges to have purchased it from defendants no. 4 to 7 on 21.07.1987. Section 4 of The Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer of Property) Act, 1972 prohibits transfer of such land or any part thereof in any manner. When the very foundation of alleged transfer of land is prohibited by law, no civil action based on such transaction can be entertained. The defendant no. 3 is not a bonafide purchaser as it did not take care to inspect the revenue records before entering into the deal given that mutation continued to exists in favour of defendants no. 4 to 7 and 9 in respect of half share and defendant no. 8 individually for another half share in the land in question in Khata/Khatauni till 1999. Defendants no. 4 to 7 are the sons of Sh. Badlu Ram from his second wife, defendant no. 9 while defendant no. 8 had born out of first wedlock of Sh. Badlu Ram. Defendant no. 3 is a nonexistent and defunct body. After its registration, its elections have never been held to keep it alive. Further the transaction by defendant no. 3 in land and for its developments into plots is beyond its aims and objectives and therefore void. The land in question is agricultural land and cannot be colonized. The society in the garb of its name as entered into commercial, unethical and acts of exploitation of the sentiments of Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 7 of 17 general public.
10. Though, the land comprised in khasra no. 34 remained joined in the names of defendants no. 4 to 9 yet the right holders had separated their respective half shares by dividing it into two equal parts. While the portion of 2 bigha, 3 biswas purchased by defendant no. 3 from defendants 4 to 7 & 9 is fully constructed, the other half portion falling to the share of defendant no. 8 and purchased by defendants no. 1 & 2 is lying vacant. In suit no. 11/90 filed by defendant no. 3 for declaration and injunction against defendants no. 4 to 9, it was alleged that the land in question has been agreed to be purchased from defendants no. 4 to 7 whereby it has been put into actual physical possession thereof but date and details of documents of transactions was not disclosed. In the subsequent Petition No. 76/RA/91 under Section 85 of The Delhi Land Reform Act for declaring defendant no. 3 to be the bhumidar of 4 bigha, 6 biswas land in khasra no. 34, it was claimed that the society is in possession thereof since the life time of Sh. Badlu Ram who had died on 08.07.1985. Defendant no. 3 thus had claimed to be in adverse possession of suit land. The petition was dismissed in default on 28.01.1993. The dismissal thereof puts a bar in initiating subsequent proceedings on substantially the same issue.
11. Defendant no. 8 had agreed to sell her share in the land in question to defendants no. 1 & 2 on 26.08.1990 for a sum of Rs. 3 lac out of which Rs. 50,000/ was paid to her as earnest money. She had simultaneously placed the intended purchaser into physical possession of the demised land. When she had refused to perform her obligations under agreement to sell, defendants no. 1 & 2 had filed Suit No. 469/93 against her which he had contested by alleging that the defendants no. 1 & 2 had committed breach of agreement. The suit was decreed in favour of Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 8 of 17 defendants no. 1 & 2 on 20.09.1997. When defendant no. 8 did not execute the sale deed even thereafter, the defendants no. 1 & 2 had filed an execution petition on 04.01.1999 and got the sale deed executed and registered in their favour by a court official. The said property has since been mutated in the names of defendants no. 1 & 2 on 26.03.1999.
12. In the appeal filed under Section 64 of Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, defendant no. 3 had claimed that a registered General Power of Attorney and letter of delivery of possession were executed by defendant no. 8 in its favour in 1992. The appeal was dismissed on 04.09.2000. In the three proceedings thereto the society has made inconsistent and contradictory pleas. Even the plaintiff by claiming to having alloted plot no. D135 on 12.05.1996 could not have asserted delivery of possession thereof in July, 1987 particularly when there is no mention of khasra no. 34 in the alleged documents in his favour.
13. On merits, defendant no. 1 denied that the plaintiff or defendant no. 3 Society had ever been in possession of the suit land on acquiring title thereof. There was no question of erection of boundary wall on the suit property or demarkation of any road. Defendants no. 1 & 2 however had left a portion of their land for being used as Rasta so as to have convenient access to their right. Rest of the averments of the plaint have generally been denied. The quashing of acquisition proceedings however is admitted. On these averments, dismissal of the suit was urged with heavy costs.
14. In his separate written statement defendant no. 2 has taken more or less same grounds to oppose the suit. It is stated that the suit bis based on title to the suit property of which possession is claimed through defendant no. 3 and therefore Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 9 of 17 cannot be entertained under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act. The defendants no. 1 & 2 have further subdivided 2 bigha, 3 biswa of land purchased from defendant no. 8. Defendant no. 2 has even fenced his 1 bigha 1½ biswa of land with brick work and wiremesh.
15. The letters allegedly written by defendant no. 3 to various authorities and its members nowhere specifically referred to the suit land but top of the colony set up by it as a whole. The inclusion of plaintiff in the telephone directory, payment of development charges or towards construction of boundary wall by the plaintiff to defendant no. 3 do not confer any title on the plaintiff over the suit property. the allegation of plaintiff having obtained electricity connection in the suit property is refuted as no such connections are given for a vacant plot. The photographs filed with the suit do not indicate plaintiff's possession over the suit property. They show that the land of defendant no. 2 measuring 1 bigha 1½ biswa is a contiguous piece of land. The allegations of defendants no. 1 & 2 having broken boundary wall of any person are denied. It is stated that no cause of action ever accrued in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.
16. Defendant no. 3 in its written statement has substantially admitted the contents of plaint but contended that it has unnecessarily being impleaded as it is neither the dispossessed nor the dispossesor. Its presence is not at all necessary for adjudication of the real controversy between the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 2. It is also averred that defendants no. 4 to 9 are also improper parties in a suit U/s 6 of The Specific Relief Act where the question of title to the property is irrelevant. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since 1987 but was unable to raise construction thereon for the reasons best known to him. Defendant no. 3 claimed to have been in possession of entire khasra no. 32 at the time of its mutation Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 10 of 17 of half portion thereof in favour of defendant no. 8. It is accepted that khasra no. 34 is a well developed residential colony although the civil suit filed against defendant no. 8 is still pending in the court. Defendant no. 3 has urged for being awarded compensatory cost for being harassed by impleading in this suit as there is no cause of action against it.
17. In separate replications to the written statements of defendants no. 1 and 2, the plaintiff while reiterating the contents of plaint and refuting those of the written statement contended that the documents filed with plaint indisputably reflect him to the inpossession of suit property from 1987 onwards until forcible dispossession therefrom on 06.11.1999. When extensive development was being carried out by the Society on the suit land and adjoining vast tract of land, the defendant no. 8 could not have handed over possession thereof to defendants no. 1 & 2 in August, 1990 when she herself was out of possession. The only appropriate and effective remedy for the plaintiff to get his possession of suit property restored from defendant no. 1 is under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act and therefore the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been invoked. Any proceeding initiated or statement made by defendant no. 8 subsequent to transfer of title and possession of the suit property to the plaintiff in 1987, does not bind him. Even the report and photographs filed by the Local Commissioner depict the demolition of old boundary walls of the suit property and the same have not been challenged by the defendant by filing objections. The defendants no. 1 & 2 have no locusstandi to question the title and possession of suit property of the plaintiff or to stake claim thereon by virtue of agreement of 26 August, 1990. The said agreement is otherwise hit by the doctrine of lispendense as Civil Suit No. 11/90 is stated to be subjudice then. The collusive decree dated 20.09.1997 and its after effects cannot infringed the rights, title and possession of the plaintiff in the suit property.
Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 11 of 17
18. Exparte adinterim injunction was granted on 20.01.2000 thereby restraining the defendants from selling/creating third party rights or parting with the possession or raising constructions on the suit property. A local commissioner was simultaneously appointed to ascertain the possession and construction at site.
19. Defendant no. 1 & 3 were proceeded exparte on 23.03.2000 but the order was recalled on filing of applications under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC by them, on 04.05.2000. Defendant no. 8 was held exparte on 12.07.2000. Defendant no. 5, 6, 7 & 9 were held properly served by refusing to receive the summons through registered post. They were held exparte on 29.03.2001. On demise of defendant no. 4, his legal heirs were substituted in his place under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC on 03.08.2001. On their abstention from court proceedings, they were proceeded ex parte on 30.10.2001.
20. Following issues were framed in the matter on the basis of pleadings on 17.09.2009 and issues no. 2 & 3 were treated as preliminary issues:
1. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
2. Whether the suit is barred under any of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act or under the provisions of Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972? OPD.
3. Whether the claim made in the suit property could be adjudicated upon and decided by a Civil Court in view of the decision given by the Revenue authorities in the mutation proceedings and if so, how far the same is applicable and binding on the plaintiff? OPD.
Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 12 of 17
4. Whether the defendant no. 3 came in possession of the suit property on or about 21st April, 1987 and if so, its effect? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff through her defendant No. 3/socially had been in continuous possession of the suit property prior to the agreement to sell dated 26th August, 1990 entered into between the defendants no. 1 and 2 with defendant No. 8? OPP.
6. Whether the defendant no. 3 ever transferred possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and if so, its effect? OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiff had been illegally dispossessed from the suit property by the defendants No. 1 and 2 on 6th November, 1999, or on any other date and if so its effect? OPP.
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act? OPP.
9. Relief.
21. The case was transferred to District Courts in January, 2004 on enhancement of its pecuniary jurisdiction. Vide judgment dated 16.10.2006 issue no. 2 was answered in affirmative and the plaint was returned for being filed in the competent court. The plaintiff had preferred CRP No. 47/07 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi aggrieved by the said order. It was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court on 11.12.2008 and case was remanded.
22. The suit was dismissed in default on 31.03.2010 but was restored on Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 13 of 17 30.08.2011. The defendant no. 3 was held exparte on 15.02.2012.
On availing four clear opportunities for leading evidence, the plaintiff could not examine any witness. His evidence was therefore closed on 14.08.2012. The contesting defendants in this background, also chose not to lead any evidence on 06.11.2012. Although the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff had proposed to file an application for recalling the order of closure of evidence yet none was ultimately filed.
23. I have heard Sh. Devender Kumar, Advocate learned Counsel for the defendant no. 1, Sh. A. K. Mishra, Advocate learned Counsel for the defendant no. 2 and Sh. Q. H. Khan, Advocate learned Counsel for the defendant no. 8 and carefully perused the file. None has cared to address arguments on behalf of the plaintiff despite being afforded number of opportunities. I have gone through the material on record. Issuewise findings of the court are recorded hereunder:
24. Issue No. 1: Contending that the plaintiff has projected his physical possession of the suit property through defendant no. 3, he could not have filed the present suit for restoring the same back when he himself was not dispossessed therefrom within six months immediately before the institution of the suit. At the most, the defendant no. 3 could have sought such a relief by showing itself to have come into possession of the suit property.
The plaintiff has categorically averred that the actual physical possession of the suit property had been delivered to him much prior to the issuance of allotment card dated 12.05.1996. It is for him to prove this fact by leading cogent evidence coupled with the fact that he was forcibly dispossessed therefrom by the Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 14 of 17 defendants no. 1 &2 on or about 06.11.1999. So far as, the form of the suit is concerned, no fault or deficiency is either pointed out or revealed. The issue therefore is decided in negative.
25. Issue No. 2: The issue has been answered in negative by the Hon'ble High Court in CR No. 47/2007 decided on 11.12.2008.
26. Issue No. 3: The issue is subservient to issue no. 2. In view of the observation of Hon'ble High Court in Order dated 11.12.2008, the jurisdiction of Civil Court in entertaining the suit is unquestionable. The issue therefore is decided accordingly.
27. Issue No. 4: It was the most important question of fact to prove which although the onus has been put on the concerned defendant no. 3 yet it lay on the plaintiff for all practical purposes to excel in this case. No evidence whatsoever has been laid in the suit by any of the parties for/against the query. None of the original documents has been produced on record which could be assessed as unrebutted. The claim of plaintiff has been specifically denied about defendant no. 3 having acquired the physical possession of suit property on or about 21.04.1987 by the contesting defendants. In the absence of the evidence the party to whom its benefit would have enured, would suffer. The issue therefore is decided in negative.
28. Issue No. 5: To succeed in the suit, the plaintiff has to establish himself to be in Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 15 of 17 physical possession of the suit property within six months immediately preceding the institution of present suit. It would not suffice, if he were to substantiate that he was in possession thereof through the allotting society, defendant no. 3. In the latter case, the society would have been the aggrieved person and approached the court with appropriate relief. Although, the regular and continuous possession of suit property from 1987 till before forcible dispossession on or about 06.11.1999 is pleaded by the plaintiff but absolutely no document has been proved in this behalf. During the stated settled possession of more than 12 ½ years, the plaintiff must have plethora of documents including correspondence addressed to defendant no. 3 and other public authorities. There is nothing to perceive that the boundary wall around the suit property was constructed by the plaintiff or for that matter by defendant no.
3. The execution of agreement to sell dated 26.08.1990 by defendant no. 8 in favour of defendants no. 1 & 2 has not been disputed per se. However, there is serious objection about the veracity of its contents. Even the defendants no. 1 & 2 by choosing not to lead any evidence gave up the chance to substantiate that the physical possession of property/land demised under the agreement was delivered to them immediately on its execution. The issue therefore is decided in negative.
29. Issue No. 6: Onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no. 3. After being proceeded exparte on 15.02.2012, defendant no. 3 never turned up. Even plaintiff made no attempts to coax them as the finding of issue would really have benefited only him. There are only rival pleadings of the parties on the issue in the judicial file. The issue therefore is decided in negative.
Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 16 of 17 30. Issue No. 7:
Neither the physical possession of the plaintiff of the suit property immediately before 06.11.1999 has been substantiated on the strength of evidence nor is there any evidence of the subsequent conduct of plaintiff in immediately reporting the matter of dispossession to the Law Enforcing Agencies, Revenue Authorities, defendant no. 3 and other Public Authorities. Despite the closure of evidence of the plaintiff on 14.08.2012, the matter lingered on for about two years for one or the other reason but nobody on behalf of plaintiff came forward to undo the said order or at least to have his say. The issue therefore, is decided in negative.
31. Issue No. 8: The assessment of this issue heavily depended on the outcome of issues no. 4 to 7 which ironically have all been decided against the plaintiff. The findings herefor cannot be at tangent. Consequently, the issue is decided in negative.
32. Issue No. 9: As a corollary to the above discussions, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed in the suit. The suit as such is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their respective costs. Decreesheet be accordingly drawn.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 26th August, 2014. (Sunil K. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (Central)10 Delhi.
Suit no. 28/04/11 Page no. 17 of 17