DEBABRATA GHOSH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in a suit for declaration and possession filed by the appellant in RFA No.422/92 (who shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff) against the appellants in RFA No.405/92 (who were defendants no.4-8 in the suit and shall hereinafter be referred to as the defendants 4-8). The trial Court has partly decreed the plaintiffs suit inasmuch as only the relief of declaration was granted to him and not of decree of possession in respect of the suit property and so feeling dissatisfied the plaintiff filed an appeal. The defendant nos.4-8 filed their appeal against the grant of decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff. Since both the appeals arose out of the same judgment of the trial Court and were heard also analogously the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The plaintiffs case may, first of all, be noticed. The plaintiff Subhash Chander Ahuja claimed to have purchased in Court auction, plot of land no. 58, Sunlight Colony, Ring Road, New Delhi(which was stated to be a part of Khasra Nos. 114 and 116 in Village Mohamadpur-Munirka, New Delhi and which area these days is stated to be known as Bhikaji Cama Place). The said plot(hereinafter to be referred to as the suit plot) belonged to one Mrs. Sushila Ghosh, who was the mother of defendants 4-8. She had mortgaged the same with the erstwhile Sunlight of India Insurance Company Ltd., Asaf Ali Road, Delhi which later on was taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation of India(for short the LIC). The mortgage was created by Smt. Sushila Ghosh to secure the payment of part of the sale consideration which she had to pay to the Sun Light Insurance Company from whom she had purchased the same. The Mortgage Deed was duly registered on September 14, 1953. Smt. Sushila Ghosh defaulted in payment of the amount due to the Insurance Company. The LIC, which had in the meanwhile taken over the Sun Light Insurance Company brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 6053.60 on August 11, 1964 against Smt. Sushila Ghosh. The said suit was decreed in favour of the LIC on 27/03/65 and in execution of that decree the suit land was put to auction. The plaintiff participated in the auction and being the highest bidder was sold the same and sale certificate dated 14th May, 1969(Ex.PW-1/1) was issued in his favour by the concerned Court. The plaintiff had placed on record copies of the pleadings in the suit of LIC against Smt. Ghosh as well as some record of the execution proceedings in respect of the decree passed in that suit. The plaintiff also claimed that the possession of the suit land was delivered to him by the Court bailiff and since then he was in possession thereof.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he subsequently came to know that the suit plot alongwith other plots of land in the same area was sought to be acquired by the Government in the year 1957 but the acquisition proceedings were challenged by Smt. Sushila Ghosh and other landowners whose plots were also sought to be acquired. In that litigation the acquisition proceedings were quashed by the civil court vide common judgment dated 29th April, 1960. That decision of the Civil Judge was upheld by the first appellate Court and also by the Circuit Bench at Delhi of the Punjab High Court in second appeal (being RSA No.93-D/1962) vide judgment dated 25/01/66. The Governments Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 08/11/68. The plaintiff claims that the government still wanted to acquire those lands and so it came out with a Scheme whereunder the landowners of Sunlight Colony whose lands were earlier sought to be acquired, were given an option to get plots in Masjid Moth area in exchange of their plots in Sun Light Colony on lease basis. The plaintiff on coming to know about that Scheme approached the Delhi Administration in the year 1971 for an alternative plot and thereafter he kept on corresponding with the Government for some years but did not get any favourable response. He, however, did not initiate any legal action against the Government for getting an alternative plot in Masjid Moth area in lieu of the suit plot. It appears that while the plaintiff was simply corresponding with the Government for allotment of alternative plot late Smt. Sushila Ghosh succeeded in getting on 99 years lease plot no. 17(msg. 400 sq. yds.), Masjid Moth Residential Scheme,(now known as Siri Fort Road), New Delhi vide lease deed dated 8th May,1974 upon her representing to the Government by way of an affidavit that she was the owner of the suit plot which representation the Government had accepted and then a Deed of Transfer on Exchange dated 8th May, 1974 was executed between Smt. Ghosh and the Government whereunder Smt. Ghosh surrendered all her rights, title and interest in the suit plot in favour of the Government and it was also agreed between the parties thereto that the Government shall quietly enter upon the suit plot. The execution of the said Deed of Transfer on Exchange and the Lease Deed in favour of late Smt. Ghosh in respect of plot no.17 was done simultaneously on 8th May,1974. That exchange of Government owned plot with the free-hold suit plot was done by the Government simply by accepting the affidavit of Smt. Ghosh that she was still the owner of the suit plot and her signing the said 'Deed of Transfer on Exchange' without taking the title deed in respect of the suit plot from her. The plaintiff on coming to know about the allotment of the plot in Masjid Moth to Smt. Sushila Ghosh in exchange of the suit land felt that his title over the suit land, which he had acquired by virtue of the sale certificate issued in his favour by the Court, had come under cloud and so he gave a notice 24th November,1975, Ex.PW-1/27, under Section 80 CPC to the Government claiming that Smt. Sushila Ghosh was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land after sale certificate had been issued in his favour by the Court and she falsely claiming herself to be the owner of the suit plot had obtained plot no. 17, Siri Fort Road, Masjid Moth Residential Scheme, New Delhi. In that notice the Government was called upon to notify and acknowledge the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit plot. The plaintiff had also conveyed his willingness in that notice to accept plot no.17 in exchange of the suit plot.