Delhi District Court
Sh. Raj Kumar vs (1) Sh. Gajraj on 30 May, 2015
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
CS No. 147/14
Unique ID No. 02402C0094032010
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Raj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Ram
Resident of B3/409, Nand Nagri,
Delhi110093. .............. Plaintiff
V E R S U S
(1) Sh. Gajraj
S/o late Sh. Ganga Ram
(2) Smt. Basanti Devi
Wife of late Sh. Ganga Ram,
Both Residents of B3/410, Nand Nagri,
Delhi110031. .............. Defendants
Date of Institution : 05.04.2010
Received in this Court : 10.02.2014
Date of Arguments : 30.05.2015
Date of Judgment : 30.05.2015
Decision : Suit is dismissed with costs
CS No. 147/14
Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 1 of 20
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Suit for possession and mesne profits/ damages
J U D G M E N T
1. This is suit for recovery of possession in respect of property No. B3/410, Nand Nagri, Delhi ( hereinafter called the suit property) as shown red color in the site plan attached with the plaint and mesne profits /damages @ of Rs. 3,000/ per month w.e.f 08.09.09 till delivery of the possession filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Defendant No. 1 is the brother and defendant No. 2 is the mother of plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property having purchased from Ganga Saran as deposed by him in the litigation filed by the father of the plaintiff against the plaintiff. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property and are in unlawful and unauthorized possession of the same and are accordingly liable to pay the mense profits / damages as prayed in the suit. Hence, this suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
3. The suit is contested by the defendants by way of a joint written statement of defence wherein preliminary objections are taken to the effect that this suit is an abuse of process of law and filed to harass the defendants. As contended, plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. One suit for injunction was filed by father of plaintiff in 1994 and this suit for possession is barred by limitation. As claimed, the suit property was purchased by late CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 2 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Sh. Ganga Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 from Ganga Saran through GPA, agreement to sale and affidavit and Sh. Ganga Ram executed the will in favour of defendant No. 1 who is handicapped. No document has been produced by plaintiff in support of contentions. The defendants further denied all the material contentions of the plaintiff in the plaint alongwith his claim of ownership and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. To the written statement of the defendants, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement are traversed and the averments made in the plaint are reiterated.
5. In view of the pleading of the parties, following issues were settled vide order dated 06.02.12:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of property bearing No. B3/410, Nand Nagri, Delhi? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Mesne Profits/damages for illegal use and occupation @ Rs. 3,000/ p.m w.e.f 08.09.2009 till the defendants surrender the possession of suit property to the plaintiff?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff may be awarded cost of the suit property? OPP
4. Relief.
And the case was fixed for plaintiff evidence.
CS No. 147/14
Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 3 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
6. Plaintiff filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW1/A and examined himself as PW1 in support of contentions. He deposed as per averments made in the plaint and relied upon the documents ie. Certified copy of judgment of the case filed by father of the plaintiff against him Ex. PW 1/1, affidavit of Ganga Saran filed in the said case mark A, site plan Ex. PW 1/ 2 and order of Hon'ble Delhi Court in RSA no.290/06 Ex. PW 1/ 3.
Other witness/ LDC from Record Room Civil, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi was examined as PW2 who appeared with the case file namely Ganga Ram V/s Raj Kumar bearing No. 122/94 decided on 02.09.97. The witness deposed regarding the certified copy of evidence of Ganga Saran Ex. PW 2/1 and certified copy of affidavit of Ganga Saran Ex. PW 2/ 3.
Other witness Babu Ram i.e. brother of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 was examined as PW3 by way of affidavit Ex PW 3/ A. As no other witness was examined by the plaintiff, the PE was closed and case was fixed for DE.
7. The defendant No. 1 on the other hand, filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. DW1/A and examined himself as DW1. His evidence was also as per his written statement filed by him. The DW1 deposed that suit property was purchased by late Ganga Ram on 31.08.81 from Ganga Saran vide affidavit, GPA and agreement Ex. DW 1/1 to Ex. DW 1/ 3 respectively and at that time, plaintiff was merely 1213 years old. The witness has further deposed regarding the Election I Card, Ration card and electricity bill to show the possession alongwith deposit receipts of license fee to DDA CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 4 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Ex. DW 1/ 8 and Ex. DW 1/9.
Other witness Sh. Ganga Saran from whom the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit property was examined as DW2 who deposed that he sold the suit property to Ganga Ram i.e father of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and admitted his signature on the document Ex. DW 1/ 1 and DW 1/ 2. No other witness was examined by the defendants and hence the DE was closed.
8. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and considered the written submissions filed on behalf of defendants. I have also gone through the relevant material on records along with relevant provisions of law. My findings issuewise are as under: ISSUE No. 1, 2 & 3
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of property bearing No. B3/410, Nand Nagri, Delhi? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Mesne Profits/damages for illegal use and occupation @ Rs. 3,000/ p.m w.e.f 08.09.2009 till the defendants surrender the possession of suit property to the plaintiff?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff may be awarded cost of the suit property? OPP
9. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 5 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 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, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
In the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to observe as under: "A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities in the present case shows that the Power of Attorney Ex. PW3/1 and the Will Ex. P1 were duly executed by the deceased Sh. Sohan Singh. The Power of Attorney is after all a registered Power of Attorney, and more importantly, the original title documents of the subject property are in the possession of the respondent No. 1 and which would not have been, if there was not to be any transfer of title in the suit property. Merely because two views are possible, this court would not interfere with one possible and plausible view which is taken by the court below, unless such view causes grave injustice. In my opinion, in fact, grave injustice will be caused not to the objectors/appellants but to the respondent CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 6 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
No. 1 her fatherinlaw Sh. Sewa Singh, if the impugned judgment is set aside."
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".
In the cases of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729 and Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, it has been held that a civil case is to be decided on balance of probabilities.
10. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines " burden of proof" CS No. 147/14
Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 7 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. which is reproduced as below: " 101. Burden of proof whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Section 101 of the Evidence Act has clearly 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.
11. In view of this legal position of the Evidence Act, it is clear that it is for the plaintiff to prove that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendants have no right , title or interest therein. The brief and relvant facts for filing of this suit alongwith defence of the defendants has been mentioned at the outset. The onus to prove all the issues remained on the plaintiff. As all these issues are interconnected and liable to be disposed off together, they have been taken up together for adjudication. CS No. 147/14
Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 8 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
12. The plaintiff has filed this suit for possession and mesne profits / damages claiming to be the owner of the suit property. The defendants on the other hand denied the claim of the plaintiff stating Sh. Ganga Ram i.e. father of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to be the owner. The ownership of Sh. Ganga Saran examined as DW 2 before this court is admitted by both the parties and they are claiming their title through him only. The pleadings of the parties and evidence on record reveals that there is dispute regarding the title of the plaintiff whereas the defendants contended that the suit property belongs to father Ganga Ram. As observed, the plaintiff has claimed the ownership of the suit property merely on the basis of one statement made by Ganga Saran in the suit for permanent injunction filed by late Sh. Ganga Ram against the plaintiff. Not even a single document have been produced or proved by the plaintiff in support of contentions of ownership. Merely bald and oral averments by the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from Ganga Saran .
Ganga Saran was examined before this court as DW2 who categorically deposed that he sold the suit property to late Sh. Ganga Ram and also admitted his signature on the document Ex. DW 1/ 1 and DW 1/ 2. It is reiterated that plaintiff has not produced any document as produced by the defendant No. 1 during cross examination . Ganga Saran deposed that he is not aware what is written on Ex. PW 2/1 and PW 2/ 3 though admitted his CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 9 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. signature. The witness has further categorically denied that he has not deposed before the court that he sold the suit property to Raj Kumar and he sold the same to Ganga Ram only. The testimony of DW 2 remained un controverted and witness has also proved atleast the document in favour of Ganga Ram Ex. DW 1/ 1 and DW 1/ 2 denying the contention that he sold the suit property to plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 also deposed on the lines as mentioned in the written statement and proved the possession. Plaintiff failed to answer to query as to when the plaintiff purchased the suit property, how the plaintiff never remained the possession of the same nor taken any steps to get the possession. Further the contentions of the plaintiff regarding purchased of the suit property even in the pleadings/ plaint is neither specific nor referred and this suit is filed merely on the basis of statement of Ganga Saran( who deposed contrary in this court). On the basis of merely the statement of Ganga saran, recorded if any and in view of any documents claiming the ownership, the plaintiff cannot be considered to be the owner of the suit property. Consequently the plaintiff is also not entitled for any relief of mesne profits/ damages as prayed in the suit.
13. Plaintiff examined himself as PW 1 in support of contention but not produced any documents regarding purchased. No complaint was made by the plaintiff also regarding theft of said power of attorney. The plaintiff has even not disclosed the consideration amount for purchase of the suit property as well as even he raise in the year 1982 to show his financial capacity to CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 10 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. purchase the suit property. Infact there is nothing on record on behalf of plaintiff regarding purchase except bald and oral averments. The testimony of plaintiff was further shattered during his cross examination when the witness admitted that he do not have any property in his name and all the brothers and sisters have right in property No. B3/409, Nand Nagri Delhi in which he is residing for 1520 years which shows that the parties enjoyed their exclusive possession. In net shell, the testimony of plaintiff appears to be false and not sustainable. The testimony of PW3 is also not helpful to the plaintiff as his testimony is merely in the nature of hearsay evidence.
14. 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 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 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 partpromised.
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 CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 11 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
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 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 53 A of the TP Act defines ' part performance ' thus :
" Part Performance. Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty.
And the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 12 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
continues in possession in part performance of the contract and had done some act in furtherance of the contract.
And the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor b the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof."
15. 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 CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 13 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. therein and do not affect any such immovable property.
As mentioned, the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property which is denied by the defendants. Since there is no registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property in accordance with provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises and not entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit. In fact the plaintiff has not produced any of the documents nor proved the same in support of contentions regarding the ownership. Merely, the oral averments is not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff and contentions regarding the ownership. As observed from the testimony of PW1 itself, the witness has not produced any of the documents not proved the same in accordance with provisions of law. In fact the testimony of PW1 was totally shattered during his crossexamination and this court has no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff categorically failed to prove the ownership or right, title or interest in the suit property.
16. As noted, late Ganga Ram filed simplicitor suit for injunction against the plaintiff for restraining from dispossessing him and the question of title was neither adjudicated nor decided in the said case. I have gone through the judgment reported as AIR 2008 SC 2033 wherein the scope of a suit for permanent injunction was examined by Hon'ble Supreme Court in detail and the position in regards to the suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property is summarized as under: CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 14 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
(i) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simplicitor.
(ii) As a suit for injunction simplicitor is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of the title to the property, as in thecase of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(iii) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title ( either specific, or implied). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 15 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the Court will not investigate or examine orrender a finding on a wuestion of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the Court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(iv) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The Court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.
CS No. 147/14
Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 16 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It was further held while answering the scope of the suit for permanent injunction relating to immovable property, the general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief are well settled. It is mentioned: 11.1 Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simplicitor will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in lawful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2 Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simplicitor, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession but his entitled to the property in dispute, or under a cloud, or where a defendant asserts a title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 17 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and by no stretch of imagination, the plaintiff can be considered to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of statement if any of Ganga Saran recorded in the suit for permanent injunction in view of absence of any documents in this respect.
17. The pleadings of the parties and evidence on record reveals that the plaintiff categorically failed to prove the contentions as mentioned in the plaint. 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 plaintiff failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to prove the contentions. Undisputedly, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish such facts. As the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus and prove the issue No. 1, 2 & 3. These issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
18. 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 CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 18 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 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 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.
19. The plaintiff allegedly derived the title from Sh. Ganga Saran but failed to produce any documents in this respect. By no stretch of CS No. 147/14 Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 19 of 20 Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. imagination, the plaintiff can be considered as the owner of the suit property having right, title or interest. In view of the aforesaid discussions and referred law as well as examining the case of the plaintiff on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff cannot be considered to be the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled for the decree of the possession and mesne profits/damages as prayed in the suit. Issue No. 1, 2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore liable to be dismissed.
RELIEF: In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove his case. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled for any relief as prayed in the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
20. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
21. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 30th day of May, 2015 G. N. Pandey Addl. District Judge02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 147/14
Raj Kumar V/s Gajraj & Ors. 20 of 20