CHANDER SHEKHAR Vs. SANTOSH SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1997 passed by the trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for declaration that the articles which were lying with the police were owned by the appellant/plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the articles which were seized/recovered from his premises in connection with an action pursuant to an FIR and when the certain stated accomplices of the plaintiff made statements to the police with respect to the stolen articles lying at the premises of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE trial court after completion of pleadings framed issues on 27.9.1983 and the relevant issue in this regard is issue no.4, which reads as under:- '4. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute?' This issue has been dealt with by the trial court from paras 15 to 17 of the judgment. THE discussion in this regard to the respective cases, the evidence led etc.is detailed and exhaustive. THE said paras 15 to 17 reads as under:- '15. As above said the present plaintiff had exhausted all the forums on the criminal side. THE learned M.M. had decided that the case property be returned to the rightful owner. In revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was decided that the parties should get ownership decided through civil court. Even in further revision before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi it was directed that the present plaintiff can file civil suit for declaration of ownership. What has been done before the criminal courts, the same has been repeated before the civil courts by the present plaintiff. Nothing new has been brought on record, no new grounds stated. What was the oral version of the plaintiff before the criminal courts, the same is the version before the civil courts. If that was the case, criminal courts could have returned the case property to him. Before civil courts he has to establish his ownership by satisfactory and cogent evidence. When the case was still pending for trial, the present plaintiff had filed an application dt. 25.5.1978 Ex.D.2 for return of the case property delivered to Smt. Pritibha Kaushik on superdari. He claimed that the articles belonged to him but no details were given. At that time he had made a prayer that spurdari of articles be cancelled in the name of deft. no.2. THE case was decided on 7.4.1979 on the ground that public witnesses were declared hostile in that case. THE evidence of the formal witnesses was not relied upon. In the statement made by him under section 313 Cr.P.C., before the learned trial court, the plaintiff has only stated about the articles recovered from him in the said theft case when the question was that by the learned trial court to him as under:- Q 'It is in evidence against you that articles Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.3 were identified by Mrs. Pritibha Kaushik as her property. What have you to say? A. THE question does not relate to him. THE last question was as under:- Q. What else to you want to say? A. I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. At that time also he did not claim the articles alleging that these articles belonged to him After acquittal he filed the application dt. 26.4.1979, he only mentioned that case property i.e. silver boxes 2, diamond rings 2, loose diamonds and other articles belonged to him. that he has got proof of owner ship of thee articles belonging to him but no details were given. In para no.4 of the plaint the plaintiff has taken the stand that all these articles were received by him under the Letter of Administration of the locker of deceased Sukhdevi w/o Shri Ram Chander from the Union Bank of Bombay. As PW1 the plaintiff himself has admitted in cross-examination that inventory of the locker was prepared with regard to the property now locker under Ex.P.2. Where is that inventory, no proof and no list filed, no witness summoned from the bank. So it cannot be known in the absence of any inventory under Ex.P.2 whether these articles were received by the present plaintiff under Ex.P.2 by operating the said locker. THEre is no definite proof. Rather no such stand taken by him earlier that these articles were received by him from the locker Ex.P.2. No such case before the learned trial court, no such case before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and no such case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 16. In this behalf reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dt. 25.11.1980 is necessary which is reproduced as under:-