Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.4 Ld. Trial Court opined that affidavit, Will and receipt cannot be taken into consideration but has lost sight of the fact that the said documents can be used for collateral purposes as well as can be read against the persons who has no better titled than the plaintiff. In para no. 32 the claim of the plaintiff was denied by the Ld. Trial Court on the basis that plaintiff has failed to establish the chain of transactions by which Mr. Ashok Kumar acquired the ownership rights which defect stands cured when the application u/o 41 Rule 27 CPC has been allowed and the observations of Ld. Trial Court losses its significance whereby the court has mentioned that PW-1 had admitted during cross examination that he had not placed any documents on record which shows that Mr. Sher Singh had sold the suit property to some other persons in the chain of documents. In similar fashion observation of Ld. Trial Court in para no. 33 has also been answered.

11.6 In the present case PW-1 clearly stated that he has purchased the suit property from Sh. Ashok Kumar and even asserted that he took possession of the suit property, he built a boundary wall over the suit property. The GPA dated 18.10.1996 executed by Sh. Ashok Kumar in favour of plaintiff is registered GPA. Mr. Ashok Kumar was also produced in witness box who categorically stated that he sold the suit property to plaintiff vide registered GPA, agreement to sell and receipt for consideration of Rs.88,000/-. He also stated that he handed over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on 18.10.1996. He further stated that he purchased the suit property from Mr. Sunder Lal attorney of Om Pal Singh on 24.3.1988. He even stated in cross examination that Mr. Bhudhu Ram and Mr. Om Pal could be the owner before Mr. Sunder Lal. By producing this witness plaintiff clearly proved his sale transaction and even established the chain. It has also not been explained by the defendant as to why he never approached any court of law for cancellation of these documents after the same came in his knowledge which shows that mentally and legally he had lost the battle and he also admits the chain of documents of plaintiff. Even the period of limitation to challenge the same has also expired. Hence, since now documents executed in respect of sale of suit property by each set of buyers and purchasers as alleged by the plaintiff is on record and has been duly supported by the testimony of plaintiff, hence the chain of ownership documents claimed by the plaintiff now stand proved on record. As far as case of defendant no. 1 is concerned. He has contended that he had purchased the suit property from one Chander Bhan who had purchased the same from Sher Singh. No title documents have been produced by the defendant no. 1 and it is averred that the said title documents were lost. First of all Ld. Trial Court has not considered the claim of defendant and defendant has also not challenged the said judgment of Ld. Trial Court. So now it has become resjudicata between the parties. Further it is point of consideration that as per the police report lodged it is alleged that the said documents were lost in Bindapur at 7 p.m. on 9.1.2009 while in affidavit of defendant no. 1's brother dated 9.1.2009 it was alleged that the said documents were lost in Uttam Nagar which creates material contradiction in the stand of defendant and it is not understandable as to when the police report was lodged on 9.1.2009 at 7 p.m. then how could the said affidavit of dated 9.1.2009 was prepared in advance by the defendant's brother in advance. Further if documents were lost at Uttam Nagar then why the complaint was made to the police station Bindapur. It is also a point of consideration that son of Chander Bhan namely Mahipal has been produced as DW-4 by the defendant who supported the case of defendant but it is not understandable that if defendant had lost his documents then atleast son of Chander Bhan could have produced his set of copies. Rather he has not uttered a single word regarding the same. Hence, story from the defendant's side is definitely under the shadow of doubt and cannot be given a clean chit. Testimony of DW-3 is of no use because anyone can come and say that his documents have been lost and he has obtained the DD entry from police station but he be declared owner even in the absence of documents. No steps for proving the same by way of secondary evidence have been taken by the defendant and mere oral testimony to that effect is of no help to defendant. Moreover, case of defendant is not improved by producing DW-4 because when the documents are not there it is not made out as to what he has tried to prove. Again his testimony is only oral and set/chain of documents was also required to be proved by defendant if he wanted to challenge the title of plaintiff. The argument addressed by him against the plaintiff is also applicable to him. DW-5 is also not helpful to the defendant because it is not made out as to how and when the defendant came into possession when he had no title and it seems that he had forcibly entered into the possession. Mere installation of electricity meter is not giving him any right, title or interest in the property and to protect his illegal possession. An application u/s 151 CPC has also been moved by the GPA/brother of defendant Sh. Shiv Kumar wherein he stated that defendant had assured him to have sale deed registered in his name after litigation is over and accordingly he spent Rs. 12 lakh on this litigtion but now the defendant has refused. He stated he has also transferred Rs.5,50,000/- in respect of suit plot to defendant and even rented out the suit property to Mohd. Answar. Interse dispute between the defendant and his own GPA Shiv Kumar is apparent and the same has definitely created a shadow of doubt on the case of defendant. Lacuna pointed out by Ld. Trial Court does not exists now. It is argued by Ld. Cl. for defendant/respondent that there are material contradiction in testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 which was also pointed out by Ld. Trial Court in point no. 40 of the impugned judgment whereby it was stated that PW-1 in his cross examination stated that he met Sunder Lal in the year 1996 whereas PW-2 stated in his cross examination that Sunder Lal died in 1988. Ld. Trial Court observed that when Sunder Lal died in 1988 then how come plaintiff met him in 1996 and if he did not meet him then it is doubtful whether the documents Ex. PW-1/2 were indeed prepared. It is observed that veracity and genuineness of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in shrouded in doubt. Though it is correct that there is contradiction in the year of death of Sunder Lal as deposed by both PW-1 and PW-2 but the said fact surely not enough to casts doubt upon the chain of ownership documents presented by plaintiff. Firstly, there is no death certificate of Sunder Lal available on record to see as to what is the real year of death of Sunder Lal. Secondly, as per case of plaintiff Sunder Lal is the person from whom Sh. Ashok had purchased the suit land on 24.3.1988 whereas as per PW-2 Sunder Lal expired on 23.9.1988 meaning thereby even if Sunder Lal expired on 24.3.1988 then i.e. the period after execution of the relevant documents and not before that hence doubt cannot be created on the documents executed between Sunder Lal and Ashok. Thirdly, whether Sunder Lal expired on 24.9.1988 or in the year 1996 does not have bearing on the documents executed between Ashok and Surender/plaintiff herein. Whether plaintiff met Sunder Lal or not is also of no importance because as per plaintiff he purchased the suit property from Sh. Ashok who was the owner and it would be unfair to discard the case of plaintiff just because of mere little contradiction which is even not relevant. Accordingly, it is held that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. As observed above it was clearly stated by PW-2 Sh. Ashok that possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff on 18.10.1996. Even PW-3 Om Prakash who was neighbor of plaintiff stated that boundary wall on the property had been constructed by plaintiff. He also stated that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and in the year 2008 the defendant no. 2 occupied the suit property. His testimony gets strength from the statement of defendant no. 2 recorded on 1.8.2009 u/o 10 CPC wherein defendant no. 2 had stated that he is in possession of the suit property and he is paying rent to defendant no. 1 for his occupation. He stated that he has been occupying the property since last fourteen or fifteen months. From the abovesaid it is clear that defendant no. 2 came in possession of the suit property since about June,2008 which strengthens the testimony given by PWs in that respect. Even otherwise, when the title has been established by the plaintiff the presumption of holding possession goes with the title and it automatically makes him entitled for the relief of possession whereas Ld. Trial Court had left the said question in lurch by stating that none of the parties have proved the ownership and the person in possession shall continue to remain in possession. Ld. Trial Court in para no. 52 has also mentioned that it is obligatory upon the plaintiff to first establish that he is owner of the suit property as condition precedent to obtain the possession of the suit property. Ld. Trial Court has also mentioned that the defendant is in continuous possession and the possession is uninterrupted and he cannot be dispossessed by anybody except the true owner. Now, this observation is also irrelevant against the plaintiff as the defendant has lost the right to retain the possession. The suit has been filed within limitation i.e. within 12 years of dispossession. In view of the above observations, the plaintiff has been established as the true owner of the suit property having better title and thus is entitled to relief of possession. Hence it is made out that defendant no. 1 illegally took the possession of the suit property in the year 2008 and put defendant no. 2 as tenant in the same. Hence, it is held that plaintiff being owner of the suit property is entitled to recover the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants. In view of the above, findings of Ld. Trial Court on issue no. 1 and 2 are reversed and both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.