JANNAT KHAN Vs. RANBIR SIGH VIJAYRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, namely the Additional District Judge-04 (North-West), Rohini District Courts, Delhi in RCA No.82/2014 preferred by the respondent/ plaintiff against the judgment & decree dated 22.09.2014 passed by the Trial Court, namely the Civil Judge (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Suit No.126/14/09. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff by the said judgment and decree, and the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff. Consequently, the appellant/ defendant have preferred the present second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the suit for seeking relief of possession, recovery of arrears of rent and recovery of mesne profits/ damages and permanent injunction on the basis that he is the absolute and legal recorded owner of the suit property and the defendant had trespassed into the same in connivance and collusion with one Shafiq Khan, who was deputed by the plaintiff to look after and maintain the land in his absence. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had been inducted by the said Shafeeq Khan illegally, who had raised a temporary structure over the suit property. The defence taken by the defendant was that they had purchased the said property from the plaintiff through his agent. The Trial Court by the judgment dated 22.09.2014 returned the finding that the plaintiff had been able to prove the ownership of the suit property. However, the defendant had also been able to prove that the suit property had been sold to her vide GPA, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Affidavit, Receipt, Deed of Will all dated 14.07.2008 [Ex.DW-1/1 (Colly.)] executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court.

(3.) The First Appellate Court while reversing the said judgment placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Another, 2011 183 DLT 1 The Appellate Court held that the documents relied upon by the defendant/ appellant had no legal significance as they were neither registered, nor appropriately stamped. The First Appellate Court held that the respondent/ plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. The First Appellate Court also reversed the finding with regard to the authenticity of the several documents dated 14.07.2008 relied upon by the appellant/ defendant, namely Ex.DW- 1/1 (Colly.). The report of the handwriting expert relied upon by the appellant/ defendant was also rejected on the premise that he had taken the photographs of the admitted and disputed signatures from the photocopies only. Consequently, the suit was decreed by the First Appellate Court.