RAMESHWAR DASS Vs. HAKIM JAVED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 16.8.2001. By the impugned judgment, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession and declaration qua the property, B-1/27, New Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit property vide customary documentation being an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and receipt executed in his favour by one Sh. Shaukeen on 3.3.1992. Sh. Shaukeen is stated to have purchased the suit property from Smt. Jereefan by similar documents dated 3.2.1992. Smt. Jereefan was stated to have purchased the property from one Sh. Nabbu Singh by the same type of documents dated 16.5.1986 and Sh. Nabbu Singh had purchased the property from the original owner/Sh. Lachcho Ram by means of the documents on 19.5.1981. The appellant/plaintiff claimed to have received the possession of the suit property on 3.3.1992 when the documents were stated to have been executed in his favour. There were proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) whereupon the property was sealed on 6.4.1992, however, subsequently the property was de-sealed and possession was handed over to the respondents/defendants. The subject suit for possession and declaration thereafter came to be filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

(3.) The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 contested the suit on the ground that he was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same by means of documents dated 12.2.1986 from one Sh. Radhe Shyam Gupta and who had purchased the same from the earlier owner Sh. Raj Kumar. It was contended that the appellant/plaintiff was claiming the suit property to be 200 sq. yds whereas the suit property was 235 sq. yds. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 also alleged that the appellant claimed the suit property to be situated in khasra No. 393/264, however, the suit property was situated at khasra No. 396/264. The respondent No.1/defendant No. 1, therefore, disputed the ownership of the appellant/plaintiff qua the suit property and prayed that the suit be dismissed.