JAGDISH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 31.8.2013 which has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the trial court dated 28.4.2007. By the impugned judgment two appeals were disposed of inasmuch as two suits were decided by the trial court by its judgment dated 28.4.2007. The disputes in the present case pertained to entitlement of the appellant to 75 sq. yards of the property bearing no. 117, Bhogal Lane/road,Jangpura, New Delhi. One suit was the suit of the respondent herein as plaintiff for injunction and the other suit was the suit filed by the appellant herein seeking declaration and injunction. The suit of the respondent -plaintiff was for injunction to restrain the appellant from sub -letting, transferring, assigning or parting with possession of the suit property whereas the appellant filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property. The injunction suit filed by the respondent herein was decreed whereby the appellant herein was restrained from subletting, assigning or otherwise parting with possession of the suit property including any third party charge or interest in the suit premises comprising of two rooms on the ground floor portion of the subject property. The suit of the appellant was dismissed and it was held that he was not the owner of the suit property. Two appeals therefore were filed by the present appellant, and which have been dismissed by the impugned judgment of the first appellate court, hence this regular second appeal.

(2.) IT is noted that the appellant herein did not dispute that the original owner of the suit property was Sh. Mangat Ram and in whose favour a lease deed was executed by the government which was proved as Ex. DW1/2. The respondent also proved in his suit a copy of the house tax survey report as Ex.PW1/2 which showed the property to be assessed in the name of Sh. Mangat Ram, grandfather of the respondent -plaintiff and the father of Sh. Chandu Lal who was the father of the respondent herein.

(3.) AS regards the case of becoming owner by means of a family settlement, both the courts below have held that the appellant has failed to prove this stand inasmuch as, no document worth any name was filed and no credible evidence was led by the appellant on this aspect. It was also not shown how parties were related for a family settlement to be entered into. The trial court in this regard has given the following findings and conclusions in paras 24 to 27 of its judgment and which read as under: -