DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2006 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 25.04.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e.DLF Universal Limited seeking possession of land measuring 8 biswas in khasra No.165 Min in Village Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi as depicted in the site plan (hereinafter referred as to the ,,suit property) had been dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of the aforenoted suit property. It was stated that the defendant is an illegal and unauthorized occupant; inspite of notice, the defendant had failed to vacate the suit property; suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) ISSUES No 2 and 4 are relevant for the controversy before this Court. Oral and documentary evidence was led. The onus to discharge this issue i.e. the plea of adverse possession as set up by the defendant was upon the defendant. Six witnesses had been examined on his behalf. DW-2 was a witness from Delhi Jal Board; he had proved Ex. DW-2/1 which was a water connection applied for by the defendant in the year 1977; it had been regularized in his name in 1978. DW-3 was an official witness from Delhi Vidyut Board; as per his deposition, the defendant had applied for an electricity connection in 1978 which had been sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 4. The defendant had examined himself as DW-6. He had proved his ration card Ex. DW-6/3 and Ex. DW-6/4. Challan receipts Ex. DW-6/5 to Ex. DE-6/8 were initiated during the year 1975. The demand notice by the House Tax Department Ex. DW-6/9 was of the year 1976-1977. Defendant had also proved the plaint filed by him against All India Institute of Medical Sciences seeking perpetual injunction against them not to interfere with his suit property; the said plaint had been proved as Ex. DW-6/P1 wherein in para 4 the plaintiff had averred that the said suit property does not belong to him but it is recorded in the ownership of DLF i.e. in the jamabandi. The defendant had also proved on record his gas connection, electricity connection, driving license and passport which were all obtained from the aforenoted suit address; the security deposit for the electricity connection was made in the year 1979; khasra girdawari Ex. DW- 4/A to Ex. DW-4/C relating to the years 1972 up to 1998 (documents of possession) also evidenced the possession of the defendant. On this oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge had held that the claim of the defendant of adverse possession had been proved. The trial Judge had further noted that the plea of adverse possession and the plea of ownership by lawful title cannot go hand in hand. However, since the possession of the defendant was open, continuous and hostile qua the plaintiff; plea of adverse possession set up by the defendant since 1975 was established; suit filed in the year 1989 was held to be time barred.