BADRI PRASAD (DECEASED) Vs. VEER CHAND & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff (since deceased and now represented by his legal heir), impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 22.5.2010 and the First Appellate Court dated 2.11.2016; dismissing the suit for possession and mandatory injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the suit property being plot no.A-95, Mandoli Road, Nathu Colony, Delhi.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff claimed that he was the owner of the suit property since December 1964 in terms of the registered sale deed dated 21.12.1964. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the appellant/plaintiff was residing at Khari Baoli, Delhi at the time of purchase of the suit property and the appellant/plaintiff thereafter had shifted to Lucknow. When the appellant/plaintiff came to Delhi in December 1977 the plot was lying vacant but in March 1978 it was found that the half portion of the plot was occupied by one Mr. M.I.K. Bhasani and against whom the suit for possession was filed. During the pendency of the suit of the appellant/plaintiff against Mr. M.I.K. Bhasani it came to the appellant's/plaintiff's notice that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 has filed the suit for injunction against Mr. M.I.K. Bhasani restraining Mr. M.I.K. Bhasani from dispossessing the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 from a portion of the plot admeasuring 50 sq. yds. Appellant/plaintiff moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC in the suit filed by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 but the same was dismissed. The subject suit hence came to be filed for possession and injunction against the respondent no.1/defendant no.1.

(3.) Respondents/defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the suit property was not owned by the appellant/plaintiff and which suit property was in occupation and possession of the respondents/defendants. All the contents of the suit plaint were denied.