VIDYA SAGAR Vs. SUBHASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 28.07.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for possession and injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to property no. 534, A Block, Raja Vihar, Samaypur Badli, New Delhi-110042. Though it is not on record, the suit plot obviously is a very very small piece of plot possibly between 25 to 50 sq. yards. The Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff though ought to have answered this query, but he had no answer to the same, although, as noted below, the appellant/plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property in terms of Documentation dated 18.05.1994. Even the photocopies of the Documents dated 18.05.1994 have not been filed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff pleading that one Sh. Chandi Ram Rangi was the owner of the suit property which was sold by Sh. Chandi Ram Rangi to the appellant/plaintiff in terms of the Documentation dated 18.05.1994 being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will etc. The possession of the suit property was also said to be handed over to the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff pleads that he constructed the ground floor in 1998 and thereafter permitted his father and the respondent/defendant/brother to reside in the suit property. It was also pleaded that the original title documents were handed over by the appellant/plaintiff to his father and the respondent/defendant. Since the respondent/defendant failed to vacate the suit property, the subject suit for possession and injunction was filed.

(3.) The respondent/defendant contested the suit and denied that the suit property was owned by the appellant/plaintiff inasmuch as the suit property was in fact purchased by the father of the parties from his personal funds. It was pleaded that the father of the parties also owned one 'Jhuggi'/ Hutment and a 'Lathe Machine'. The respondent/defendant pleaded that between the parties there was a Family Settlement on 07.11.1998/Ex.PW-1/D-1, in the presence of various persons, and which family settlement is also signed by the parties to the present litigation, whereby the suit property fell to the share of the respondent/defendant and the appellant/plaintiff received the 'Jhuggi'/Hutment along with the 'Lathe Machine' belonging to the father.