MUNNI BEGUM Vs. JAGBIR SINGH YADAV AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge upholding the order dated 31.3.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge rejecting the suit of the present appellant/plaintiff bearing No. 313/2014.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be pertinent here to give brief background of the case. One Baqar Ali filed a suit for declaration and injunction with consequential reliefs against the respondents, who were three in number. The case which was setup in the plaint was that he was the owner of the suit premises consisting of property bearing No. 60 & 61 on a parcel of land measuring 200 square yards situated at abadi of Gora Qabristan near Patel Chest, Maurice Nagar, Delhi. It has been further alleged that the appellant's predecessor -in -interest was in possession of the said parcel of land till 1988 when he was dispossessed by the respondents. It was also stated that after dispossession, the respondents are in possession and the suit was filed in the year 1995 seeking a declaration from the court that the appellant is the owner of the land and the respondents be restrained from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property. The respondents/defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. One of the objections which was taken in the written statement was that the suit was liable to the rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as there was no cause of action. The locus standi of the appellant was also challenged.

(3.) THE learned trial court came to pass an order on the basis of that application on 31.3.2014. The application was allowed on the ground that the case setup by the appellant himself was that he had been dispossessed in the year 1988 and the appellant had not claimed the possession. The court observed that the suit for possession was barred by limitation as well as possession ought to have been claimed in the suit seeking declaration and injunction. The learned Civil Judge placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in case titled Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy; : AIR 2008 SC 2033 wherein it was observed as under: -