(1.) The respondents herein had instituted a civil suit against the petitioner seeking the relief of permanent injunction describing the subject property as plot bearing khasra No. 649 situate in abadi deh indicating it to be falling within the lal dora of village Dabri, Delhi. They claimed to be the owner of the subject land and alleged threats of dispossession by the petitioner herein (defendant in the suit), the prayer being restricted to relief of permanent injunction against interference in the peaceful enjoyment of the said property. The copy of the written statement submitted by the petitioner, as defendant in the suit, reveals that he denied that the respondents (the plaintiffs) were owner of the land comprised in khasra No. 649, stating that it fell outside the lal dora of the village, reference also being made vaguely to khasra No. 26/24/(1-2), wherein he (the defendant) claimed to be the owner in possession.
(2.) The suit was put to trial on the basis of issues settled on 14.02.2002, primarily with reference to the prayer clauses and the preliminary objections. On 03.01.2007 the trial court framed two additional issues, the import whereof essentially was that the plaintiffs were also called upon to prove that the subject land is situate within khasra No.649 and that they were owners in possession thereof.
(3.) It appears from copy of the judgment dated 09.11.2011 of the Civil Judge that during the course of evidence, it was revealed that khasra No.649 had been re-numbered as khasra No.38. The trial Judge declined to act upon the evidence led by the plaintiffs vis -vis khasra No.38 observing that it was beyond the pleadings. Yet, by later observations in the said judgment it was recorded that no recent document had been placed on record by the plaintiffs to show their ownership either of khasra No.649 or of khasra No.38 and on such basis, she went on to hold that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their ownership or possession either over khasra No. 649 or over khasra No.38.