Delhi High Court
Kamal Sharma vs Praveen Kumar Sharma & Ors. on 18 November, 2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18.11.2022
+ RFA 581/2022
KAMAL SHARMA ....APPELLANT
Through: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate
versus
PRAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS ...RESPONDENTS
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
GAURANG KANTH J. (ORAL)
C.M. No. 49527/2022 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
RFA 581/2022 and C.M. No. 49526/2022 (Stay)
3. The Appellant in the present Appeal is assailing the Judgment &
Decree dated 18.08.2022 passed by the ADJ-02, South East, Saket
District Courts, New Delhi in CS DJ No. 7922/2016 titled as Praveen
Kumar Sharma Vs Kamal Sharma & Ors ("Impugned judgement").
FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:
4. The parties in the present Appeal are siblings, children of Late Sh.
B.K Sharma. Respondent No.1 (Original Plaintiff) and Appellant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 1 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
(Original Defendant No.1) are real brothers. Respondent Nos.2 & 3
(Original Defendant Nos.2&3) are real sisters of Respondent No.1 and
the Appellant.
5. Late Shri B.K Sharma was the owner of the property bearing
House No.964, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi ("Suit
property"), built up property on an area of 56 sqr. yards comprising of
ground, first and second floors. Late B.K Sharma during his lifetime sold
the ground floor of the said property. Hence at the time of his death, he
was the owner of first and second floor of the suit property. Late B.K
Sharma died intestate on 25.10.1995 leaving behind the Appellant and
Respondents as his legal heirs. His wife predeceased him.
6. Late Shri B.K. Sharma was a lawyer by profession, and he was the
licensee of Chamber No.142, Patiala House Court, New Delhi allotted by
New Delhi Bar Association. Respondent No.1 is also a lawyer by
profession and hence after the death of his father, Respondent No.1
became the licensee of the said chamber, i.e, Chamber No. 142, Patiala
House Court, New Delhi.
7. After the death of Late Shri B.K Sharma, the Appellant and
Respondent No.1 entered into a Family Settlement Deed dated
28.07.1996 (Exhibit PW1/3). As per the said Settlement Deed, the suit
property was divided into two shares i.e. Respondent No.1 was allotted
the second floor along with terrace and Appellant was allotted the first
floor and one room over the terrace of the second floor.
8. Respondent No.1‟s wife was allotted Government accommodation
in the year 1998 and hence Respondent No.1 shifted to the Government
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 2 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
accommodation. However he retained the possession of his part of the
suit property.
9. Later Appellant and Respondent No.1 mutually agreed to inter
change their respective shares/ parts in the suit property. Hence the
Appellant came into possession of the second floor along with terrace
and Respondent No.1 came into possession of the first floor and one
room over the terrace of the second floor.
10. Respondent No.1 rented out his portion of the suit property to a
tenant whereas the Appellant and his family were occupying their portion
of the suit property, i.e, second floor along with terrace.
11. It is the case of Respondent No.1 that he visited the suit property
on 09.07.2012 and found that the locks of his premises were changed by
the Appellant. Matter was reported to the police. Later both the parties
arrived at a compromise. The possession of Respondent No.1 was
restored back qua his share of the suit property, i.e, the first floor and one
room over the terrace of the second floor.
12. Again on 22.07.2012, Respondent No.1 went to the suit premises
for renovation of his first floor. However, the Appellant and his family
objected to the same. This led to a fight between both the siblings and
hence, FIR No.159/2012 was registered against the Appellant and his
family members with Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur on 22.07.2012
under Sections 323/341/448/34 IPC (Exhibit PW1/5).
13. It is the case of Respondent No.1 that the Appellant took forcible
possession of Respondent No.1‟s share of the suit property and rented it
out to a third party. The Appellant is getting a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/-
from the said portion.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 3 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
14. Respondent No.1 in the year 2012 filed a suit for partition,
declaration and permanent injunction, being CS No.136/2012 but when
Respondent No.1 came to know that the Appellant had taken forcible
possession of the suit property, Respondent No.1 vide order dated
17.04.2014 withdrawn the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit.
15. Despite repeated requests, the Appellant was not honoring the
family settlement, hence Respondent No.1 filed the present Suit for
Partition, Declaration, Damages and Permanent Injunction against the
Appellant and Respondent Nos.2&3 (Sisters).
16. Appellant filed the written statement raising preliminary objection
of limitation. The Appellant in his written statement admitted the fact
that the father of the parties, Late Shri B.K. Sharma died intestate. The
Appellant admitted that the Appellant and Respondent No.1 entered into
a family settlement dated 28.07.1996 and partitioned the suit property
amongst themselves. According to the Appellant, the funds for the
marriage of Respondent No. 3 (sister) was arranged by the Appellant
himself and also from the money left behind by the deceased father of the
parties which was generated from the sale of the ground floor of the suit
property. The Appellant further stated that Late Shri B.K Sharma was
also having Chamber No.142 at the Patiala House Courts. Hence parties
entered into an oral agreement whereby it was agreed that Respondent
No.1, being a lawyer will retain the Patiala House Court‟s Chamber in
his exclusive possession and in lieu of this, he will transfer his share of
the suit property to the Appellant. The Appellant further submitted that
Rs.3,00,000/- being the sale consideration received after the sale of the
first floor of Chamber No. 142, Patiala House Courts was distributed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 4 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
equally to all the Respondents in cash. It is the contention of the
Appellant that since then he was in exclusive possession of the entire suit
property. The Respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit
property.
17. Based on the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed
the following issues:
"1. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court
fees and jurisdiction? OPD-l.
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD-l
3. Whether in an oral settlement it was decided that plaintiff
would retain the chamber belonging to the father of the parties
at Patiala House Courts in lieu of the second floor of the
property in question and the said floor would fall exclusively in
share of defendant no.1? OPD-L
4. Whether the defendant no.1 paid the money to the plaintiff and
other co-sharers in lieu of his share exclusive share of the
second floor in the property in question? OPD-1.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as
prayed for? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of partition, as
prayed for? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of damages, as
prayed for? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP
9. Relief".
18. Respondent No.1 stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and Head
Constable Mr. Uttam Chand was examined as PW-2. The Appellant and
Respondent Nos. 2&3 stepped into the witness box as DW-1, DW-2 and
DW-3 respectively. Sh. Ajay Nigam, an officer from Punjab National
Bank was examined as DW-4, Sh. Ashok Shashni, Clerk from UCO
Bank was examined as DW-5, Sh. Jaibier @ Sunny, the tenant of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 5 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
Respondent No.1 was examined as DW-6, and Ramesh Sharma, husband
of Respondent No.2 who wrote the family settlement was examined as
DW-7, Sh. Devender Kumar, Alhmad from the Court of Smt. Nupur
Gupta, MM was examined as DW-8 and Sh. Rahul, Asst. Manager, UCO
Bank was examined as DW-9.
19. Based on the evidence placed before it, the learned Trial Court,
vide impugned Judgment & Decree dated 18.08.2022 was pleased to
decree the suit in favour of Respondent No.1. The relief clause of the
Impugned Judgment reads as follows:
"37. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants and
it is held that plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that
the Family Settlement Deed Ex.PW-1/3 with (inter change) is
binding upon all the parties and plaintiff is entitled to share of the
first floor of the suit property with one room at the terrace of the
second floor as per Family Settlement Ex.PW-1/3.
38. The suit property stood divided between the parties as per the
settlement Ex PW-1/3 and plaintiff is therefore, entitled to be put
into possession of his share i.e. the first floor along with one room
at the terrace of the second floor of the suit property.
39. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to use and occupation
charges @ Rs.2700/- per month w.e.f. July 2012 till the possession
of the same is handed over by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff is also entitled to 10% annual increase (over the last paid
immediately) on the said amount of Rs.2700/- per month till its
realization.
40. The plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction and
defendants or anybody on their behalf are restrained from
creating any third party interest in the portion which fell to the
share of the plaintiff. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet
be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room".
20. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 18.08.2022, the
Appellant preferred the present Appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 6 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
21. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant argues that
the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the oral agreement between
the Appellant and Respondent No.1. Learned counsel further submits that
the Respondent filed the suit for Partition, Declaration, Damages and
permanent injunction. However, no Court fee was filed for the relief of
Damages. Hence the suit filed by Respondent No.1 was defective.
Learned counsel for the Appellant again submits that no evidence was
led by the parties to prove the damages, however, the learned Trial Court
erroneously granted damages in favour of Respondent No.1.
22. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that
as per the family settlement between the parties, Respondent No.1 was
entitled for the second floor along with terrace. However, in the
impugned Judgment, learned Trial Court erroneously granted First Floor
of the suit property with one room at the terrace to Respondent No.1.
23. With these prayers, learned Counsel for the Appellant prays for
the dismissal of the suit.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
24. This Court heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the Appellant and perused the documents placed on record by the
Appellant.
25. A perusal of the record reveals the following facts:
(i) The Appellant admitted the fact that Late Shri B.K
Sharma was the absolute owner of the suit property and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 7 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
he died intestate leaving behind his 4 children as his
legal heirs.
(ii) The Appellant also admitted the fact that Respondent
No.1 and the Appellant entered into a family settlement
dated 28.07.1996 (Exhibit PW1/3).
(iii) The said family settlement stated 28.07.1996 is a
handwritten document written by Sh. Ramesh Sharma,
husband of Respondent No.2.
(iv) Sh. Ramesh Sharma stepped into the witness box as
DW-7 and stated categorically that the family
settlement was written by him, and it bears his
signatures. He further stated that Respondent No.1
stayed on the second floor of the suit property till 1998.
After 1998, he shifted out from there and rented out the
second floor to a tenant. He further stated that after
1998, Appellant and Respondent No.1 interchanged
their respective portions. Thereafter, the first floor was
in possession of Respondent No.1 and second floor was
in possession of Appellant.
(v) DW-2/Smt. Anita Sharma and DW-3/Smt. Anuradha
Vashisht reiterated the stand of DW-7. DW-2 and DW-
3 categorically stated that there was no oral partition
between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 regarding
property left by the Late Shri B.K Sharma.
(vi) DW-6, Jaibier, the tenant of Respondent No.1 stepped
into the witness box and categorically stated that he
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 8 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
was tenant of Respondent No.1 and first floor of the
suit property was rented out to him from 2011 to June-
July 2012. He further deposed that he handed over the
possession of the First Floor of the suit property to
Respondent No.1 in the presence of one of his sisters.
(vii) Appellant stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and
deposed that „I am not aware as to when the plaintiff
orally relinquished his share in the suit property in my
favour. (Vol. It was relinquished after the marriage of
my sister Anuradha).‟
26. The Appellant admitted the fact that the family settlement dated
28.07.1996 (Exhibit PW1/3) was executed between the parties and they
acted upon it. From the evidence of DW-2, DW-3 and DW-7, it is proved
that the Appellant and Respondent No.1 interchanged their respective
portions. From the evidence of DW-6 and DW-3, it is evident that
Respondent No.1 was in possession of the first floor of the suit property
till June-July 2012. From Exhibit PW1/5 (FIR Dated 22.07.2012), it is
evident that the Appellant on 22.07.2012 forcibly taken over the
possession of Respondent No.1‟s portion of the suit property and put his
lock & key.
27. It is the case of the Appellant that there was an oral agreement
between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 whereby the Respondent
No.1 relinquished his share of the suit property in favour of the
Appellant. The Respondent No.1 disputed this fact. Hence the burden of
proof is on the Appellant to prove that there was an oral agreement
between the parties. In order to prove the said oral agreement, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 9 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
Appellant/DW-1 deposed that „I am not aware as to when the plaintiff
orally relinquished his share in the suit property in my favour. (Vol. It
was relinquished after the marriage of my sister Anuradha).‟ There is no
evidence adduced by the Appellant to prove that an „oral agreement‟ was
entered between the parties. The Appellant failed to disclose any details
of the said oral agreement. There is not even a single witness to the said
oral agreement. Whereas the other family members, DW-2 and DW-3
categorically stated that there was no oral partition between the
Appellant and Respondent No.1.
28. A learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No.819/2016
titled as Aditi Upadhya Vs Lalit Kumar has held that „If there was an oral
family settlement, the best way in which this oral family settlement would
have been proved is by showing that the parties acted upon pursuant to
this oral settlement‟. In the present case, the Appellant never tried to
mutate Respondent No.1‟s share of the suit property in his name. Exhibit
D-1, the electricity Bill of the First Floor of the suit property shows that
the same is still in the name of Respondent No.1. Exhibit PW1/1, the
election I card of the Respondent No.1 still bears the address of the suit
property. Exhibit PW1/ 4 (Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 on
09.07.2012 with the police station) and PW1/5 (FIR No.159/2012) shows
that the Appellant forcefully taken over the possession of Respondent
No.1‟s share of the suit property. DW-2 and DW-3 categorically deposed
in their evidence that there was no such oral agreement between the
parties. Hence the evidence adduced by the parties clearly indicates that
there was no such oral agreement between the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 10 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
29. Learned Trial Court dealt with these aspects in detail in the
impugned Judgment, which reads, inter alia, as follows:
"21.It is not in dispute that the suit property devolved upon the
plaintiff as well as all the three defendants after the death of
their father Sh. B. K. Sharma on 25.10.1995 who died
intestate. It is also admitted fact that thereafter, the plaintiff
as well as defendant no. 1 entered into family settlement deed
dated 28.07.1996 Ex.PW-1/3 as per which the first floor and
a room on the terrace of the second floor fell to the share of
defendant no. 1 and entire second floor fell to the share of the
plaintiff. Not only that, the defendant no.1 the main
contesting-defendant i.e DW-1 admitted in his cross
examination that he swapped his portion with the plaintiff.
This is also the stand of the plaintiff that the floors were inter
changed later on as well as the possession.
22. The stand of the plaintiff is that he had inducted tenants in his
first portion upto 09.07.2012 when the locks to his portion
were changed by defendant no. 1 and the matter was reported
to the police also and a compromise was arrived at. Further,
again on 22.07.2012, defendant no. 1 and his wife restrained
the plaintiff and dispossessed the plaintiff from his first floor
portion, regarding which FIR No.159/12 PS: Kotla
Mubarakpur was registered.
23. On the other hand, the stand of the defendant no. 1 is that
their father Sh. B. K. Sharma also had a chamber no. 142 at
Patiala House Court and after the family settlement took
place, the plaintiff relinquished his share in the suit property
after an oral settlement was entered into between them as it
was decided that plaintiff who was an advocate would need
the chamber for his practice and would retain the same in
lieu thereof the first floor of the suit property would fall to the
share of the defendant no.1 and since then, the said portion of
first floor is also in exclusive possession of the defendant no.
1.
24. The two sisters i.e. defendant no.2 and 3 had also entered the
witness box. DW-2 Smt. Anita Sharma in her cross
examination had stated that she as well as defendant no. 3
Smt. Anuradha agreed to the settlement between the brothers
i.e. plaintiff and defendant no.1. Even defendant no. 3 DW-3
Smt. Anuradha Vashisth in her cross examination had stated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 11 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
that though the settlement Ex.PW-l/3 does not bear her
signature but she had no objection to the said settlement.
Therefore, it is clear that after the death of Sh. B. K.
Sharma, the father of the parties on 25.10.1995, the plaintiff
and defendant no.1, the two brothers with the intervention of
the other family members entered into family settlement Ex.
PW-l/3 and defendants no.2 and 3 the two sisters did not
object to the said settlement. In fact, Sh. Ramesh Sharma who
is the husband of defendant no.2 and also DW -7 was one of
the witnesses to the said settlement agreement Ex PW-l/3.
Therefore, it is clear that the two sisters knowingly permitted
the two brothers i.e. plaintiff and defendant no. 1 to divide the
suit property between themselves, to their exclusion. It is also
admitted by both the brothers that later on, they interchanged
their portions. Being the admitted fact, there is no need to
delve further into this fact as to when this interchange
happened.
25. Now the question is whether, after this family settlement dated
28.07.1996 Ex PW-l/3 and subsequent interchange, there was
any other oral family settlement between the plaintiff and
defendant no. 1 whereby the plaintiff relinquished his share in
the suit property in lieu of retaining the chamber no. 142,
Patiala House Courts, Delhi which was in the name of father
Sh. B.K. Sharma. The defendant no. 1 in his written statement
as well as in his affidavit of evidence Ex. DW-I/A has
nowhere stated as to when the said oral family settlement took
place. Further, the place where the said settlement took place,
whether any person was witness to the said oral family
settlement and or not is also nowhere stated. In this regard,
prior conduct of the parties inter se dealing between them
need to be appreciated. In the year 1996, the family
settlement was reduced into writing and perusal of the said
family settlement dated 29.07.1996 Ex. PW-1/3 reflects that
family settlement bears the signatures of four more persons,
apart from the plaintiff and defendant no. l. Their conduct
reflected that in order to divide the property, the parties
always had in mind that the terms of the agreement be
reduced into writing and to be witnessed by the witnesses. It
being so, the contention of the defendant no. 1 that later on,
in lieu of chamber at Patiala House Courts, Delhi, the
plaintiff relinquished his share in the suit property is nothing
but a self serving statement. Further, the two sisters i.e.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 12 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
defendant no. 3 and defendant no.2 had denied that any such
subsequent oral settlement had taken place between the
plaintiff and defendant no.1.
26. Further, even during his cross examination, the DW-I had
deposed that he was not aware as to when the plaintiff orally
relinquished his share in the suit property in his favour but
voluntarily stated that it was relinquished after the marriage
of sister Anuradha. DW-3 Smt. Anuradha Vashisth stated that
she had married on 14.02.1997. The contention of the
defendant no. I regarding the relinquishment of the share of
the plaintiff is vague, disputed and without support' of any
documentary or oral evidence which could support the stand
of the defendant no.1 in this regard. Non providing of any
date, time and place and persons in relation to such
subsequent oral agreement is fatal to this stand of the
defendant no. 1.
27. Therefore, considering the totality of the evidence on record
and in the given facts and circumstances, it is held that
defendant no 1 has failed to prove there was any subsequent
oral settlement whereby it was decided that the plaintiff
would retain the chamber belonging to the father of the
parties at Patiala House Court, Delhi in lieu of second floor
of the suit property and that the second floor would
exclusively fall to the share of defendant no. 1. The defendant
no. 1 being a non advocate could not have been entitled to the
chamber and had used it as an excuse to usurp the share of
the plaintiff in the suit property. Therefore, the issue no.3 is
accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant no. 1".
30. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court is
in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court. The
Appellant miserably failed to prove the „oral Agreement‟ between the
Appellant and Respondent No.1 and hence in view of the Family
settlement arrived at and acted upon by the parties, the learned Trial
Court rightly decided the Issue Nos.3,5,6,7 and 8 in favour of
Respondent No.1.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 13 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
31. The Appellant raised an issue of Court fee during the course of the
argument. It is the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that
Respondent No.1 has not paid the requisite Court Fee for the relief of
Damages. A specific issue, i.e. Issue No.1 was framed on this aspect by
the learned Trial court. It will be helpful to reiterate the finding of the
learned Trial Court on this issue:
"36. The plaintiff has valued the suit for relief of
declaration at Rs.200/- and for the relief of partition and
possession for his specific share at Rs.4,25,200/-, with value of
suit property at Rs. 17 Lakhs and calculated the court fees for
damages @ Rs.8000/- per month and valued for the relief of
permanent and mandatory injunction at Rs.260/- and paid the
total court fees of Rs.8250/-. Onus to prove this issue was upon
the defendant. The defendant has failed to specify as to what is
the value of the suit property or failed to lead any evidence to
prove this issue or to cross examine the plaintiff on this aspect.
The suit being filed in the year 2012 and area of the suit property
is about 56 sqr. Yards, in my considered opinion, this issue is
decided against the defendant no. 1 and in favour of the
plaintiff".
32. Learned Counsel for the Appellant failed to point out the error in
the findings of the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no perversity or
impunity in the findings of the learned Trial Court. Hence the objection
raised by the Appellant in this regard is rejected.
33. Learned counsel for the Appellant argues that as per the family
settlement between the parties, Respondent No.1 was entitled for the
second floor along with terrace, whereas, in the impugned Judgment, the
learned Trial Court erroneously granted First Floor of the suit property
with one room at the terrace to Respondent No.1. It is the Appellant‟s
own case that the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 interchanged their
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 14 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
portions with mutual consent. DW-2, DW-3 and DW-7 supported this
fact in their respective evidence. Hence this Court is of the considered
view that learned Trial Court rightly granted the possession of the First
Floor of the suit property with one room at the terrace to Respondent
No.1
34. Learned counsel for the Appellant argues that no evidence was led
by the parties to prove the damages, however, the learned Trial Court
erroneously granted the damages in favour of Respondent No.1. Learned
Trial Court examined this point in Issue no.6. The relevant portion, reads,
inter alia, as follows:
"34. Since the defendant no.1 has failed to prove that the
subsequently, the plaintiff had relinquished his share in the suit
property, therefore, considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances, it is held that the plaintiff was dispossessed from
his portion in July 2012 and therefore, he is entitled to use and
occupation charges/damages since then. However, the plaintiff
has claimed the damages/mesne profits @ Rs.8000/- per month
from defendant no. 1. However, DW-6 Sh. Jaibir @ Sunny had
deposed that he was tenant of the plaintiff in the suit property
during the period 2011 in June till 2012 and used to pay rent @
Rs.2700/- per month.
Though no other document has been placed on record by the
plaintiff to show that the use and occupation charges of the said
property was Rs.8000/- per month. In his cross examination, the
plaintiff had stated that he was receiving rental @ Rs.2700/- per
month from Sunny @ Jaypee and there is no suggestion contrary
to this.
Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to use and
occupation charges @ Rs.2700/- per month w.e.f. July 2012 till
the possession of the same is handed over by the defendant no.1
to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is also entitled to 10% annual increase
on the said amount of Rs.2700/- per month till its realization".
35. The Appellant was in possession of Respondent No.1‟s share of
the suit property from July 2012. Hence, the Appellant needs to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 15 of 16
Signing Date:22.11.2022
17:35:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005007
compensate Respondent No.1. DW-6, who was the tenant of Respondent
No. 1, in the year 2012 was paying Rs.2700/- as rent to him. Hence based
on this deposition, the learned Trial Court fixed the monthly rent at
Rs.2,700/-. Even though the said rent amount is very less compared to
the market rent, this Court is in agreement with the learned Trial Court as
the dispute is between two brothers. Hence the objection of the Appellant
is hereby rejected.
36. In view of the detailed discussions herein above, this Court finds
no illegality or perversity in the impugned Judgment and Decree dated
18.08.2022. Hence the impugned Judgment & Decree is hereby upheld
and the present Appeal is dismissed. Pending application is accordingly
disposed off. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
GAURANG KANTH, J.
NOVEMBER 18, 2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RITU DHIRANIA RFA 581/2022 Page 16 of 16 Signing Date:22.11.2022 17:35:07