KRISHAN LAL DUTTA Vs. ISHWER CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant impugns the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1997 whereby the suit for possession filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff claimed himself to have become owner of the plot No. VC-12, admeasuring 220 sq.yds. situated in Varinder Nagar, New Delhi by means of registered sale deed dated 22.9.1967. THE plot was purchased from one Sh. Ram Gopal, a Coloniser. It was alleged that the respondent defendant forcibly took possession of the property in April 1978 and therefore the suit for possession was filed. After completion of pleadings, the trial court framed Issues and Issue Nos. 1 to 3 are relevant and the same read as under:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently sought to argue that it was only the son of Smt. Devi Bai, who appeared as witness as her attorney and, therefore, such evidence cannot be looked into in view of the case of the Supreme Court reported as Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 217. The said judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case because as I have already narrated above the instant case has been decided on the basis of the documentary evidence and other evidences which stand established. It is not general law that an Attorney can never depose. In the facts of the present case therefore the contention of the counsel for the appellant is not well founded and is rejected. The second argument was that the contents of the chain of the sale deed should have been independently proved. I, for one, have failed even to understand his argument because once Title Deeds being registered Sale Deeds are duly proved and exhibited showing the flow of ownership, it does not stand reason as to what is the meaning of the argument that contents of the documents being required to be proved.