HARPAL SINGH Vs. MAHABIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two regular second appeals filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 10.05.2012 by virtue of which the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2009 passed by the trial court for possession and mesne profits in favour of the respondent No.1 and against the present appellants was affirmed.

(2.) THE main question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, which he terms as the substantial question of law, is with regard to the identification of the suit property in respect of which the decree has been passed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of the first appeals bearing Nos.RCA No.75/2009 & RCA No.76/2009, the appellants filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking permission to adduce additional evidence with regard to the demarcation report prepared by M/s. N.K.Engineers at the instance of SDM, Shahdara, on the basis of which the suit property was allegedly falling in Khasra No.414 and not in Khasra No.566, as claimed by the respondents. It has been contended that the said demarcation report of M/s N.K.Engineers is on the record of the SDM, Shahdara and this is a public document which ought to have been looked into by the appellate court. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention, has also relied upon the following judgments: i)Malyalam Plantations Ltd. V.State of Kerala and Anr.; AIR 2011 SC 559; ii) Shyam Gopal Bindal and Ors. V.Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.; (2010) 2 SCC 316 and iii) C.L.Gupta v.Delhi Development Authority; 2011 (123) DRJ 377 and urged that this non consideration of the report constitutes a substantial question of law.

(3.) THE respondents herein had filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the appellants more than three decades ago. The case which was set up was that the respondent (M/s Mahabir Steel Rolling Mills) is a duly registered partnership firm and Mr.Uggar Sain Jain was one of its partners who was competent to sue for and on behalf of the firm. The respondent No.2 (one of the partners) had purchased a parcel of land bearing Khasra No.566 and 571 at village Mauja, Siqdar Pur, Shahdara, Delhi, measuring 2 bighas and 5 biswas and 3 bighas and 15 biswas, in a public auction on 20.01.1960 under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 from the Managing Officer of the Office of Regional Settlement Commissioner, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. The said parcels of land were under the occupation of the present appellants namely Harpal Singh and Mr.R.S.Azad who are the appellants in the two appeals.