Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record carefully. None appeared for the appellant to advance the arguments despite granting several opportunities. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the respondent no. 1. Trial Court record was also summoned and I have also gone through the same.

13. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is apparent that appellant had sought relief of declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that his father along with respondent no. 1 was the co­ owner of the suit property which was leased out by the DDA vide perpetual sub lease deed dated 14.02.1968, but later on respondent no. 1 after forging the document procured a second lease deed dated 09.12.1969 exclusively in his name in respect of entire suit property. From the averments made in the plaint, it is also apparent that appellant is not in possession of the suit property and even the respondent no. 1 has refused to acknowledge the father of the appellant as co­owner of the suit property which is evident from bare reading of averments made in the plaint. Thus, it was incumbent upon the appellant to seek relief of possession and partition as well.