NANDAN SINGH Vs. GOPAL SINGH DANGWALA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 23.9.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for partition of 120 sq. yards of the property bearing no. L-10, Gali No. 3, Jaiprakash Nagar, Ghonda, Delhi but has dismissed the suit with respect to the remaining 65 sq. yards area, and which area as per the appellant/plaintiff was also jointly owned by the appellant/plaintiff with the respondent no.1/defendant no.1/brother.

(2.) There is a very limited issue which is called upon for decision in this Regular First Appeal because the suit for partition has been decreed with respect to the property L-10 for 120 sq. yards. It is not disputed that the title documents executed by the erstwhile owner Sh. Tula Singh in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and respondent no.1/defendant no.1 is with respect to 120 sq. yards and not 185 sq. yards. Once therefore the title documents are for only 120 sq. yards executed by Sh. Tula Singh in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, trial court in my opinion has committed no error in holding that the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 were joint owners only of 120 sq. yards and not 185 sq. yards.

(3.) I may also note that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 has proved in his favour the power of attorney Ex.DW1/A executed by owners of 65 sq. yards, and who were sons of Sh. Devi Dutt namely Sh. Dharam Dutt, Sh. Bacchi Ram and Sh. Krishna Nand, whereas the appellant/plaintiff was not able to substantiate his case of co- ownership of 65 sq. yards along with respondent no.1/defendant no.1. Appellant/plaintiff may have claimed that he did not have the title documents of 65 sq. yards, however once respondent no.1/defendant no.1 proved that he had purchased 65 sq. yards from Sh. Dharam Dutt, Sh. Bacchi Ram and Sh. Krishna Nand by virtue of a power of attorney Ex.DW1/A then onus shifted upon the appellant/plaintiff to show that 65 sq. yards was jointly purchased by the appellant/plaintiff with the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and in this regard no evidence whatsoever was led by the appellant/plaintiff which a court can believe.