PUSHPA RANI & ORS Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is filed impugning the judgment of the appellate court dated 11.12.2008 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the trial court dated 29.11.1997. Trial court had partly decreed the suit by decreeing the relief of injunction but the prayer of the plaintiff for quashing of the demand was rejected. The effect of both the judgments is that the suit of the plaintiffs filed for declaration before the trial court to question the demand raised by the respondent-DDA for shop no. C-500, Sabzi Mandi, New Delhi upon Sh. Hund Raj, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-plaintiffs, stands dismissed but is decreed so far as the relief of injunction is concerned. The appellate court has confirmed the judgment of the trial court by making the following relevant observations in para-18, and which reads as under:

(2.) Really therefore the issue which now survives for adjudication in this regular second appeal is the claim of the appellants-plaintiffs of revision of the cost by the DDA from 25,200/- to Rs.45,034/-. Enhancement of the amount really is only on account of claim of interest. The trial court by its judgment while dealing with issue no.1 in para-11 made observations suo moto of revision of cost being untenable, however ultimately this issue was found against the appellants-plaintiffs. Para 11 of the judgment of the trial court reads as under:-

(3.) Therefore, effectively, both the courts below have dismissed the challenge led by the appellants-plaintiffs to the demand raised by the DDA of Rs.45,034/-; by the trial court observing that the revised demand was accepted; and the appellate court observing appropriately in para 18 as stated above. Appellate court has however further in para 18 of its judgment observed that no convincing evidence could be placed to show that late Sh. Hund Raj was forced and pressurized to accept the revised demand, as no convincing evidence was led by the appellants-plaintiffs to prove this aspect. Late Sh. Hund Raj took benefit by taking possession of the suit shop from the respondent-DDA and thus principle of estoppel was held to apply against Hund Raj and the appellants-plaintiffs who are the successors-in-interest of Hund Raj.