CHATTAR SINGH Vs. SAMAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2011 which has endorsed the finding of the trial Judge dated 28.03.2007 whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff Chattar Singh seeking a permanent injunction against three Defendants qua the suit property (i.e Khasra No. 27/20/2 yards situated in the Revenue Estate of village Karawal Nagar, Delhi Illaqa Shahdara) had been dismissed.

(2.) The Plaintiff claimed himself to be bhumidar and in possession of the aforenoted suit property; his contention was that he had purchased this property from Hari Ram (Defendant No. 3) who in turn had purchased it from Zile Singh (Defendant No. 1); Defendant No. 2 is the son of Defendant No. 1. Averments as contained in the plaint are that Defendant No. 1 had sold 250 square yards of land to Defendant No. 3 for a consideration of ' 15,000/-; sale documents to the said effect had been executed; this was on 18.03.1991; vacant physical possession of the plot had been delivered to Defendant No. 3 by Defendant No. 1 on the same day. Defendant No. 3 had thereafter vide documents dated 18.10.1999 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar had for a consideration of ' 50,000/- sold this 250 square yards to the Plaintiff; receipt to the said effect had been executed; possession of the land had been taken over by the Plaintiff on the same day i.e. 18.10.1999. The Plaintiff had constructed a boundary wall as also two rooms. The Defendants are threatening him to dispossess from suit land. Suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 & 2 i.e. father and son had filed a joint written statement; they had disputed the claim of the Plaintiff; the version of the Plaintiff was denied. Defendant No. 3 had filed a separate written statement. Attention has been drawn to that part of his written statement wherein he has stated that he had handed over possession of this plot to the Plaintiff on 18.10.1999; it is pointed out that this an admission made by Defendant No. 3; this could not have been disregarded; provisions of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act takes care of such an admission; the suit of the Plaintiff was liable to be decreed on this count. To support this argument reliance has been placed upon Bharat Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Bhagirathi, 1966 AIR(SC) 405. There is no dispute to this proposition. An admission if it is clear and unequivocal is a substantive evidence in view of Section 17 & 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, this admission of Defendant No. 3 in his written statement did not entitle the Plaintiff to any relief qua the present proceedings. The impugned judgment had noted that Defendants No. 1 & 2 had contested the proceedings vehemently; their contention being that Defendant No. 1 had in fact never sold this land to Defendant No. 3; the question of Defendant No. 3 thereafter selling it to the Plaintiff did not arise; Defendant No. 3 could only step into the shoes of Defendant No. 1; Defendant No. 1 had denied the title of Defendant No. 3; question of an admission in favour of the Plaintiff did not arise. This judgment of Bharat Singh is wholly inapplicable to the factual scenario.