Delhi District Court
Sh. Bhuddham vs (1) Ashok Rao on 29 November, 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. 62/14
Case I.D. Number : 02402C0072742014
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Bhuddham
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Das Mulaji
R/o H. No. 180/224, Double Storey,
New Seelampur,
Delhi110053. ........ Appellant
VERSUS
(1) Ashok Rao
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Das Mulaji
(2) Sh. Prakash Rao
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Das Mulaji
Both R/o
H. No. 180/224, Double Storey,
New Seelampur, Delhi 110053. ............ Respondents
Date of Institution of Appeal : 07.03.2014
Arguments heard on : 28.11.2014
Date of Judgment/Order : 29.11.2014
Decision : Appeal Dismissed with Cost
RCA No. 62/14 1 of19
Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
J U D G M E N T
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2004 passed by Learned JSCC/ASCJ/Guardian Judge (NE) in CS No. 352/11 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein against the defendants/respondents for possession and mesne profits/damages in respect of property bearing No. 180/224, Double Storey, New Seelampur, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the suit property) as shown in yellow and green color in the site plan Ex. PW1/1 was dismissed. For the sake of convenience the appellant and the respondent shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit as the plaintiff and defendants respectively.
2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for possession and mesne profits/damages against the defendants and the brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint is as under:
(i) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are real brothers of the plaintiff and are residing in property No. 180/224. It is alleged that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he had purchased the suit property from Sh. Mahavir Prasad S/o Sh. Ganga Prasad, R/o Village Hasthsaal, Uttam Nagar, Delhi on 26.01.1986 vide General Power of Attorney dated 26.01.1986. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff to allow him to reside in one kitchen as a room in the suit property and on his request, plaintiff allowed the defendant No. 1 to reside in kitchen as a room in the suit property.
RCA No. 62/14 2 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is further alleged that defendant No. 2 also requested the plaintiff to allow him to reside in a room in the suit property and being faithful brother, the plaintiff allowed the defendant No. 2 reside in a room in the suit property. It is further alleged that plaintiff is occupying the portion adjoining the suit property ( shown in blue colour in the site plan) but now he wants the suit property vacated from both the defendants. It is further alleged that several times, plaintiff requested the defendants to vacate the suit property but they refused to do so. It is further alleged that plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 07.07.2011 to both the defendants but in spite of service of legal notice, defendants neither vacated or handed over the vacant possession of the suit property nor sent any reply to the above said legal notice. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendants have contested the present suit by filing their WS. In the WS, defendants have submitted that the plaintiff has not filed the correct site plan of the suit property. They alleged that on 04.05.1997 in the life time of Smt. Bakku a formal family settlement had been taken by the free will and consent of all the family members and the same was signed by the plaintiff and other legal heirs in the presence of each other. The original copy of the said settlement with all original documents of the suit property is in illegal possession of the plaintiff. He further alleged that the suit property has not been valued properly and requisite court fees have also not been filed.
4. Plaintiff has field replication to the WS of the defendants and therein he has denied the contents of the WS which are in denial of the plaint and has re RCA No. 62/14 3 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. iterated the contents of plaint.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 28.02.2012:
(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within the period of limitation ? OPP
(ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of the parties as stated by the defendants in para No. 6 of the preliminary objections of the written statement ? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession as prayed by the plaintiff in the plaint ? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mense profits, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP
(vi) Relief, if any.
6 The plaintiff/ appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the impugned judgment and decree dt. 01.02.14 is not sustainable in law and facts and is passed without applicable of judicial mind. As further contended, the learned trial judge passed the judgment without applying the judicial mind and without considering the evidence of the PWs. The learned trial judge did not written his findings in all the issues and dismissed the suit only on the basis of findings on issues No. 4. The judgment relied by learned trial judge i.e. Suraj Lamps & Industries V/s State of Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 206 is not applicable in the facts of the case and the plaintiff acquired the title of the suit RCA No. 62/14 4 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. property by virtue of GPA coupled with consideration. It is further mentioned that appellant could not produce relevant documents before trial court as they are not traceable and due to circumstances beyond his control and alongwith appeal, appellant has filed an application for leading additional evidence U/o 41 Rule 27 CPC. It is mentioned that Ld. Trial Judge has not applied his mind and disposed off the suit without following process of law and considering the relevant aspects. Hence, this appeal is filed praying to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. The learned counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgment reported as 2014 II AD( DELHI) 491 in support of application U/o 41 Rule 27 CPC.
7. The defendants/ respondents did not wish to file reply to the appeal. Reply to the application u/o 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed by respondent denying the averments in the application contending that the appellant did not disclose regarding the documents at all before the learned trial judge nor discussed about the same in the plaint and evidence. This application U/o 41 Rule 27 CPC is after thought and without any ground.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions. I have also gone through the Trial Court record and considered the relevant provisions of law.
9. 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.
RCA No. 62/14 5 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 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 " preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
10. 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 RCA No. 62/14 6 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 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.
11. The brief and relevant facts for filing of this suit and issue framed has been mentioned above. Along with the appeal, an application u/o 41 Rule 27 CPC has been filed on behalf of appellant for allowing additional evidence and filing documents. Nowhere in the application it is mentioned that why the appellant/ plaintiff did not file the documents before Ld. Trial Court or from where this documents were traced. These documents were not even discussed / explained in the pleading and evidence of plaintiff/ appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed this application contending that appellant cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence as plaintiff / appellant failed to RCA No. 62/14 7 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. assign any reason for the same.
The contentions of the learned counsel for appellant in support of this application itself appears to be contrary and appellant failed to assign any reason for not making such request at the relevant stage. Even otherwise there is no reason explained for not filing these documents, from where this documents were received. As held in AIR 2001 SC 2802, AIR 2005 P& H 42 and (2001) 7 SCC 503 it is trite to observe that U/o XLI, rule 27 additional evidence could be adduced in one of the three situations, namely, (a) whether the trial court has illegally refused the evidence although it ought to have been permitted;(b) whether the evidence sought to the adduced by the party was not available to it despite the exercise of due diligence;(c) whether additional evidence was necessary in order to enable the Appellate court to pronounce the judgment or any other substantial cause of similar nature. It is equally well settled that additional evidence cannot be permitted to be adduced so as to fill in the lacunae or to patch up the weak points in the case.
As further held in AIR 2005 MAD 431, it is not open to any party at the stage of appeal to make fresh allegations and call upon the other side to admit or deny the same. Any such attempt is contrary to the requirement of order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Additional evidence cannot be permitted at the appellate stage in order to enable other party to remove certain lacunae present in that case.
12. As held in (2012) 8 SCC 148, 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. Order 41Rule 27 CPC enables appellate court to take RCA No. 62/14 8 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 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 apprised, to the admission of such evidence. 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. As further held, 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. 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 the satisfactory reasons for the non production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal.
13. Keeping in view of aforesaid discussion, this court of the considered opinion that there is no basis for allowing this application u/o 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by appellant. This court does not find any substance and the application is therefore dismissed.
14. The evidence of the parties led before Ld. Trial Court was somehow on the similar lines as contended in the pleadings. The appellant and respondent are the real brothers and appellant claimed the respondent to be a licensee. The appellant claimed that he purchased the suit property on 26.01.86 by GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, will and receipt and permitted the respondents to live in the suit property. As observed, the plaintiff/ appellant has not produced any of the documents in support of his claim regarding ownership except one RCA No. 62/14 9 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. GPA which is Ex. PW 1/ 4. The onus to prove the issues regarding entitlement of possession and mense profit was upon the plaintiff. The GPA Ex. PW 1/ 4 relied by the plaintiff is unregistered and by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be executed for consideration as claimed by the plaintiff. By virtue of GPA Ex. PW 1/ 4, the plaintiff cannot be considered as owner of the suit property at all. The testimony of PW 1 was shattered during cross examination which is dealt and examined by learned trial judge in the impugned judgment. In view of documents on record, this court has no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff categorically failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit property and defendants are merely licensee. Mere oral averments in support of ownership is not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff. As the relief for possession was not granted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff failed to prove the ownership, he was not entitled for the relief of mesne profits and damages. Even the findings of issues No. 1 to 3 are rendered against the defendant/ respondents, the outcome of the suit filed by plaintiff remains the same. The testimony of PW 1 during cross examination was contrary to the averments in the plaint. The impugned judgment does not appear to be unsustainable and is correct appreciation of facts and evidence in the case laid before.
15. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ( ' TP Act' for short) defines ' transfer of property' as under: " 5. Transfer of Property defined: In the following sections " transfer of property " means an act RCA No. 62/14 10 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself 9 for to himself) and one or more other living persons; and " to transfer property" is to perform such act." XXX XXX Further Section 54 of the TP Act defines ' sales' thus :
" Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or partpaid and part promised.
Sale how made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
Contract for sale. A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such RCA No. 62/14 11 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."
Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908: " 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory. (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 ( 20 of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 ( 8 of 1871), or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 ( 3 of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely
(a) Instrument of gift of immovable property;
(b) other nontestamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish , whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property.
16. It is settled law that title of immovable property above the value of Rs.
RCA No. 62/14 12 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 100/ can only be transferred by way of a registered instrument as prescribed Under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and by way of documents of sale as recognized under Section 54 of the Transfer of the Property Act. As held in AIR 1969, SC 1316, the documents of which registration is necessary under the transfer of Property Act ( such as under
Section 54 of the TP Act) but not under the Registration Act fall within the scope of Section 49 of the Registration Act and if not registered are not admissible as evidence of any transaction of acting any immovable property comprise therein and do not affect any such immovable property.
17. As held in 128 (2006) DLT 407 (DB) titled M. L. Aggarwal Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors, : " The petitioner has only produced an agreement to sell, will and a power of attorney and a receipt for payment of money but these in our opinion do not constitute a sale. Under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, Sale of an immovable property can only be by a registered deed. In our opinion, the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the suit property as he has not purchased it by any registered sale deed. An immovable property cannot be purchased by a mere power of attorney or agreement to sell."
The ratio was further reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in AIR 2003, Delhi 120 titled G. Ram Vs. DDA wherein it is mentioned that transfer of immovable property can only be affected by executing a registered documents. Merely making an agreement of sale or execution of power of attorney could not transfer right, title or interest of any immovable property.
RCA No. 62/14 13 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
18. This court is guided in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Limited versus State of Haryana & Another, reported as 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) in this respect. As held, GPA , Agreement to Sell, Will and receipt would not confer ownership rights in respect of immovable property. Hon'ble Supreme court vide order dt. 15.05.09 reported as Suraj Lamps & Industries V/s State of Haryana, 2009(7) SCC (366) referred illaffects of GPA sells or sell agreement/ GPA/ will transfer holding that there cannot be sell by execution of power of attorney nor there can be transfer by execution on agreement to sell and power of attorney and will. It was further reiterated that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/ conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transaction of the nature of 'GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transaction as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transaction known as GPA sales.
RCA No. 62/14 14 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
19. A reference to the aforesaid paras shows that unless there is a proper registered sale deed, title of an immovable property does not pass. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has however reiterated that rights which are created pursuant to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dealing with the doctrine of part performance ( para 12), an irrevocable right of a person holding a power of attorney given for consideration coupled with interest as per Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872( para 13) and devolution of interest pursuant to a will( para 14).The object of giving validity to a power of attorney given for consideration even after death of the executants is to ensure that entitlement under such power of attorney remains because the same is not a regular or a routine power of attorney but the same had elements of a commercial transaction which cannot be allowed to be frustrated on account of death of the executant of the power of attorney.
20. Therefore, no doubt, a person strictly may not have complete ownership rights unless there is a duly registered sale deed, however, certain rights can exist in an immovable property pursuant to the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872. There also takes place devolution of interest after the death of the testator in terms of a Will.
In the facts of this case, neither the provision of section 53 A of the transfer of property act nor the provision of section 202 of the contract act is applicable. Infact there is nothing on record either produced/ proved by the plaintiff / appellant regarding the claim of the ownership except the bald RCA No. 62/14 15 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. averments.
21 Section 27 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 casts upon the party, liable to pay stamp duty, an obligation to set forth in the instrument all facts and circumstances which affects the chargeability of duty on that instrument. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes deed of conveyance compulsorily registrable. The transfer of an immovable property can only be by a deed of conveyance and in the absence of a deed of conveyance ( duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transfered. With regard to the legal validity of such documents i.e. agreement to sell, GPA, Will and receipt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2009 SC 3077 has held that such documents cannot create any right in respect of immovable property. The only way a contract of sale can create title to immovable property is by way of a deed of conveyance as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and registered in pursuance of the provisions of Section 17 of The Registration Act, 1908. No such document has been executed in favour of plaintiffi /appellant nor proved on record.
22. This Court is conscious of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sh. Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh Chand reported in 188 (2012) DLT 538 in which the judgment in the case of Suraj Lamps (supra) was interpreted. In the case of Ramesh Chand (supra) the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that right to possess immovable property arises not only from a complete RCA No. 62/14 16 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. ownership right but also by having a better title.
In the present case, plaintiff/appellant has claimed title on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Payment receipt and the will but the execution of the documents not proved. None of these documents are registered nor produced before the court. Even if these documents were executed in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant, the same would not create any title in his favour. As mentioned, the plaintiff/ appellant claimed to be the owner of the suit property which is denied by respondents. Since there is no registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant in respect of the suit property in accordance with provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the appellant/plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises and not entitled for the relief of possession, damages/mesne profits as prayed in the suit.
23. 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 RCA No. 62/14 17 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 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 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.
24. The testimony of the PWs, DWs and the pleadings of the parties established that the appellant / plaintiff failed to prove the case and discharge the onus. The Ld. Trial Court has examined the issues framed in the suit in proper perspective. This court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.02.14 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 the appeal which is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is therefore RCA No. 62/14 18 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. dismissed with cost.
25. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
26. Trial Court record be sent to the concerned court along with copy of this judgment.
27. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 29th day of November, 2014 G. N. Pandey Addl. District Judge02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
RCA No. 62/14 19 of19 Buddham Vs. Ashok Rao & Ors.