Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 417 of the dmc act in Shri Shyam Mishra vs Shri Karam Chand Tyagi on 23 August, 2014Matching Fragments
14. So far as the possession of the appellant is concerned, same also does not appear to be settled possession. First of all, the house tax assessment receipts, notices issued by MCD and receipts issued by DVB regarding the electricity connection can not take place of document of the title. Beside this, these documents are also not sufficient to show the settled possession of the appellant no. 1. Ex. PW1/1 is the notice under Section 124 (5) of the DMC Act and is dated 21.08.1986. Ex. PW1/2 is the house tax receipts issued on 14.02.1987. Ex. PW2/1 is the receipt issued by DDA dated 12.11.1987. PW3/C is the license issued by MCD under Section 416417(1) of the DMC Act dated 21.03.1984. Ex. PW3/C is the receipt issued by DVB dated 27.04.1984 respectively towards the electricity connection. Ex. PW3/F is the receipt issued by MCD dated 27.04.1987. These documents are not sufficient to show the settled possession of the appellant no. 1 in the suit property. The suit was filed in the month of January 1985. Most of the receipts and / or other documents have been issued after the filing of the suit. Even the receipts which pertain to the year 1984 have been issued only about 4 - 5 months before the filing of the present suit. It clearly shows that the appellant no. 2 & 3 are concerned, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to show their settled possession. Prolonged possession of immovable property can be termed as settled possession but the documents placed on record do not show prolonged possession of the appellant no. 1. thus, even appellant no. 1 cannot be said to be in settled possession of the suit property.