Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30. Nonetheless, I may also point out the factual and evidentiary aspect in brief. Plaintiff has alleged that in the year 1994, the boundaries of his plot had changed and the road of 15' which was earlier on the West side of the plot of the plaintiff was shifted to the East side of the plot of the plaintiff. That on 09.07.2000, the boundary wall of the suit property was demolished by Sh. Kuldeep S/o Raje on the pretext that the suit property falls in Khasra No.27/20. That a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff with SHO P.S. Timarpur on 12.07.2000 and a Kalandra No.DD 6A/16A being No.82/2000 was filed in the Court of SEM North. The Ld. SEM had passed orders for demarcation of land and for ascertainment of Khasra numbers to resolve the dispute of Khasras. That on 17.03.2001, the officials of the revenue department visited the site for revenue demarcation. That a report of demarcation was made and the fact that land in dispute formed part of Khasra no.27/21 and not Khasra 27/20 was recorded by the police in their DD No.46-B dated 17.03.2001. That on 20.03.2001, the defendant, his son and some other persons intruded on the land plot of plaintiff and started quarreling and attacked the construction labour and the brother of the plaintiff i.e., Sh. Subhash Gupta, who has been examined as PW-2. That defendant had made a complaint on 04.04.2001to P.S. Timarpur on which a Kalandra was prepared.

34. Plaintiff has primarily relied on a demarcation report dated 17.03.2001 in support of his contention that the plot of land of which he is claiming ownership falls in Khasra No.27/21. Plaintiff has summoned Sh. Kuldeep S/o Raje as PW-2, who was a summoned witness and had filed on record the certified copy of the demarcation report dated 17.03.2001 and the same was Ex.PW3/A (During the course of trial of the present suit, PW-3 had filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for return of the original of the demarcation report in question as the same was required to filed in another case; the said application was allowed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 22.11.2019 and now the certified copy of the certified copy of demarcation report is available on record). The Demarcation Report Ex.PW3/A has not been proved in accordance with law inasmuch as author of the report has not been examined by the plaintiff to prove the demarcation report. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no site plan annexed with this demarcation report dated 17.03.2001. Even if the demarcation report in question is prima facie taken to be true, plaintiff has not even mentioned whether the demarcation report pertains to plot as originally purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1990, as shown in site plan Ex.PW-1/5 or if the same pertains to the plot of land as reflected in site plan Ex.PW1/6, which according to plaintiff reflects the changed position after 1994. Thus, plaintiff has failed to prove the demarcation report Ex.PW3/A and the same cannot be relied on for the purpose of determination of rights of plaintiff with respect to suit property.

36. In view of the testimony of the PWs, documents on record, the pleadings of the parties and examining the case of the plaintiff on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, it is established that the plaintiff failed to prove the case and discharge the onus. This court does not find any merit or substance in the suit of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has categorically failed to prove the demarcation report Ex.PW3/A. Plaintiff has further failed to prove his averment that the dimensions of his plot had changed in the year 1994 and the Gali of 15'0" which was earlier of the Western side of the plot of the plaintiff was shifted to the Eastern side of the plot of the plaintiff. In fact, the site plans Ex.PW1/5 and PW1/6 filed by plaintiff are vague and does not reflect with certainty the identity of the suit property. Furthermore, cannot claim to be the owner of a piece of land on the basis of SPA/GPA and Affidavit.