JAGDISH MITER BHOLA Vs. HAMIDUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellants seek to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2003 whereby the suit for possession and recovery of damages filed by the Respondents was decreed in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for filing the present appeal are that the Respondents are the successor in interest of the property bearing No. 2331-2337 , Haji Nathu Building, Raj Guru Road, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi from their late grandfather Shri Sheikh Nathu who had taken the two plots of land admeasuring 417 sq. yards and 208 sq. yards total being 625 sq yards out of khasra number. 490 and 491/1 situated at Chuna Mandi , Pahar Ganj, New Delhi vide lease deed dated 17.7.1919 from Delhi Improvement Trust. A suit for possession and recovery of damages was filed by the Respondents No. 1 to 3 against the Appellants in respect of the said property and in defense the Appellants claimed the title of the said property in themselves by adverse possession. Vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.2003 the said suit was decreed in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, Mr. Pushkar Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the Respondents failed to prove on record their ownership in respect of the subject property as they did not prove on record either the death certificate of late Shri Sheikh Nathu or that they were the legal heirs of late Shri Nathu. Counsel also submits that by the Jama Bandi/Khatauni and the property tax receipts which were proved on record, the Respondents cannot prove their title on the property in question. Counsel also submits that the learned trial court misconstrued the judgment of this Court in the case of Rama Kant Jain Vs. M.S. Jain, , AIR 1999 Delhi 281. The contention of the counsel is that in the facts of the said case the Plaintiffs/Respondents had claimed the ownership based on the sale deed and the Appellants/Defendants being the relatives of the Plaintiffs had claimed that they had contributed towards the purchase of the property in question. Counsel thus submits that in those peculiar facts the learned Trial Court took a view that setting up an adverse possession in such facts would amount to admission by the Defendants to the title of the Plaintiffs. Distinguishing the facts of the present case, counsel submits that in the present case the Appellants had throughout been disputing the title of the Respondents and nowhere in the written statement the Appellants had admitted the title of the Respondents. Counsel also submits that in fact late Shri Sheikh Nathu was the owner of the said property who left for Pakistan in the year 1947 and ultimately died in the year 1951 and the present Respondents who have claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of late Shri Nathu have failed to prove on record as to how they claim themselves to be the legal heirs of late Shri Nathu. Counsel also submits that in Para-29 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has observed that as per the documents i.e. Khatauni and Jamabandi placed on record by the Respondents pertaining to the year 1967-68, it was Nathu son of Rahim Baksh who was the owner in respect of Khasra No. 490-491/1. Counsel also submits that so far the house tax receipts and the receipts of the lease money proved on record by the Respondents are concerned, the same as per the settled legal position cannot confer any title on the Respondents. In support of his arguments, counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the judgment in Rajinder Singh v. State of J & K and Ors., 2008 9 SCC 368, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court took a view that the revenue records cannot confer title of the property on a party and entries in the revenue records are relevant only for fiscal purpose and substantive rights of the title and ownership of the claimants can be decided only by a competent civil court in appropriate proceedings. Based on the said judgment, counsel submits that the learned trial court has wrongly taken into consideration the jamabandi/khatauni, notice of demand issued by the MCD, house tax receipts and receipt of lease money etc. to confer ownership of the property in question on the Respondents.