OM PARKASH SHARMA Vs. KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the first appellate court dated 22.5.1987 by which the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 1.10.1981. Trial court by its judgment dated 1.10.1981 had decreed the suit for possession of the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant with respect to the suit property bearing no.25/59 (old no.25/50), Shakti Nagar, Delhi admeasuring approximately 50 sq yds. Trial court held that the RSA No.41/1987 Page 1 of 10 appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the suit property inasmuch as he had purchased the suit property by means of the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 dated 28.9.1978 executed by Mohd. Yusuf son of Aziza Begum. It is not in dispute between the parties that Aziza Begum was the original owner of the property. Trial court also disbelieved the case of adverse possession as set up on behalf of respondent/defendant by holding that since the suit was filed on 10.9.1979 the respondent/defendant had to show his hostile/adverse possession before 10.9.1967, however, there was only testimony of witnesses DW1, DW3 and DW7 to show that the defendant was in possession of property whereas the electoral roll as well as the letters exhibited as DW8/1, DW9/1 and DW10/1 did not show that the respondent/defendant was in possession of the suit property on or before 10.9.1967.

(2.) THE following substantial question of law was framed in this case vide order dated 27.1.2014: - "Whether the appellate court has committed a gross perversity and violation of the law of appreciation of evidence by holding that Mohd. Yusuf, from whom the appellant -plaintiff purchased the suit property, was not the son of Mst. Aziza Begum -

(3.) (i) On behalf of the respondent/defendant it was very strenuously argued before this Court that Mohd. Yusuf who has purchased the suit property by the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 is stated to be the son of Niaz Mohd and resident of 2822, Mohalla Niaran, G.B. Road, Delhi whereas in the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/3 Mohd. Yusuf son of Niaz Mohd shown to be resident of 25/59, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and difference in addresses cast a doubt on the identity of Mohd. Yusuf. It is further argued by placing reliance upon Ex.DC that the address in this document of Mohd. Yusuf is written as 2822, Gali Pipal Wali, Mohalla Niyarian, Delhi but that is not the address of Mohd. Yusuf who entered into the agreement to sell, Ex.PW1/3, and wherein the address is of the suit property. In sum and substance, it is argued that Mohd. Yusuf who sold the property to the appellant/plaintiff was a person who impersonated the real Mohd. Yusuf and the real Mohd. Yusuf son of Aziza Begum never sold the suit property to the appellant/plaintiff. It is also argued alongwith above stand, that Aziza Begum had no son called Mohd Yusuf.