Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As regards the claim of ownership, put forth by Rambilas, Phool Singh and Jagdish, respondents and plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.473 of 1980, on the basis of sale deeds, executed by Durga Shankar etc., the trial court rejected the plea by holding that they have not been able to prove the title of their vendor and dismissed their suit.

Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the unsuccessful defendants and the plaintiffs in the other suit, filed five separate appeals. The appeals were consolidated and vide a common judgment and decree dated 15.12.21987, the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, in the suit filed by Ram Avtar and dismissed the suit by holding that Ram Avtar has not been able to prove his and his brother's title. The first appellate Court held that rent note, Ex.P2, ejectment order dated 24.03.1954, Ex.P3, order passed in execution proceedings and the record of execution proceedings, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5, do not prove the ownership of Ram Avtar and his brother. As regards the order recording delivery of possession passed in execution of the eviction order the first appellate court relied upon the deposition by Kailash Chand, Nazir, who deposed that possession was not delivered. The appellate Court also held that, though, the rent note Ex.P-2, provides evidence of ownership regarding a part of the the premises that were rented out but as boundaries in the rent note and the site plan, Ex.P1 do not tally, these documents cannot be relied to declare Ram Avtar and his brother as owners of the entire property or to decree the suit for possession.