GELA RAM Vs. BRAHM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 30.8.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Gela Ram seeking possession and damages qua the suit property i.e. a plot of land measuring 120 sq. yards bearing no.67, situated in Ambedkar Basti, had been dismissed.

(2.) THE case set out by the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the aforenoted suit property; Sangat was the erstwhile owner; after his death his daughter Shivdevi became the owner of the suit property; she had converted the estate into a residential house. Shivdevi and her husband Nanak had transferred the aforenoted suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3000/-; on 27.9.1979 an agreement to sell, GPA and registered receipt had been executed in favour of the plaintiff; he was given actual physical possession of the suit property. THE further case of the plaintiff is that he had thereafter on 16.3.1982 filed a suit for permanent injunction against Shivdevi and Nanak who had tried to interfere in his peaceful possession as their intentions had become dishonest. Status quo was ordered to be maintained vide order dated 29.6.1982. During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff was dispossessed forcibly by Shivdevi and Nanak. This was in May 1985. THEreafter suit was dismissed in default. A criminal complaint was also filed by the plaintiff. THEreafter he came to file the present suit seeking possession of the suit property; this was on 07.11.1990.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led. The plaintiff had examined himself as PW-1 and had proved his documents i.e. agreement to sell, GPA and receipt dated 27.9.1979 as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. On the basis of these documents he claimed possession of the suit property. Defendant had examined one witness in defence. The plaintiff had to prove his title. It was held that the agreement to sell, GPA and the receipt dated 27.9.1979 were not documents of title on the basis of which the plaintiff could claim possession. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act was also adverted to. Documents Ex.P1 to P3 were also found to be suspect; as besides the fact that they had not been notarized; the signature of the person who had drafted the said document i.e. agreement to sell was also not noted on the said document; plaintiff not having established his case, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.