GOPAL VERMA Vs. DINDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this regular second appeal is to the two concurrent judgments of the courts below, the first dated 27.10.2006 of the original court, and the second dated 24.3.2011 of the second/ appellate court, and by which orders, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for mandatory injunction was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case stated by the appellant/plaintiff are that he was entitled to mandatory injunction against the respondents for recovering back possession of the property comprising of one room, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and stair case with terrace in the property bearing no. 207/1, Gali No.9, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parwat, New Delhi on the ground that the appellant had ownership rights to the suit property. THE appellant claimed ownership rights, however, no title documents were pleaded or proved. Another reason for claiming ownership rights was on the basis of adverse possession of the premises. THE respondents/defendants appeared and contested the suit and laid out a defence that originally one Smt. Sheela Devi was the owner of the suit property and who sold the property to Smt. Sat Naraini Devi. It was thereafter alleged that after the death of Smt. Sat Naraini Devi her husband Sh. Sita Ram Aggarwal became owner of the suit property and which was let out to the defendant no.2 in the suit by Sh. Sita Ram Aggarwal. It was further the stand of the defendants in the suit that the plaintiff was the erstwhile tenant of the property and he vacated the same in 1992 and shifted elsewhere and whereafter Sh. Sita Ram Aggarwal, husband of Smt. Sat Naraini had let out the property to the defendant no.2 and for which rent was regularly paid by the defendant no.2 since December, 1992.

(3.) I completely agree with the aforesaid observations of the trial court inasmuch as the plaint has given no basis as to how appellant is claiming ownership of the suit property. If ownership of property is claimed by means of title documents however admittedly the plaint contains no basis of purchase of the property by means of title documents. In fact, first four paragraphs of the plaint laid out a case of ownership of property on the basis of adverse possession. I fail to understand as to how a tenant can claim an adverse possession because existence of tenancy would have to mean admission of ownership of the owner/landlord. In any case, adverse possession is an issue which has to be very strictly proved, and on which aspect, the appellant miserably failed. The trial court has rightly observed that the owners of the property Smt. Sat Naraini and Smt. Susheela Devi had filed a suit against the plaintiff for recovery of rent and which suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff no.2 therein namely Smt. Susheela Devi and against the present appellant/plaintiff. The surprising aspect is that the appellant went to the extent of claiming that the suit property was purchased by him from one Sh. Nihalu Jat for a consideration of Rs.4000/- and which was a case, brought for the first time only in the cross examination of appellant/plaintiff as PW-2. Obviously, this aspect was also not proved as to how the plaintiff/appellant had purchased the property from Sh. Nihalu Jat as no documents were filed on record.