MANOHAR LAL SHARMA Vs. PURSHOTTAM DAS MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the second appeal. Respondents 1 to 5 who were the plaintiffs presented a plaint on 18th October, 1979 for possession from the appellant. It may be noticed here that prior to this the appellant had instituted a suit against the respondents on the basis of his alleged possessory title and that suit was dismissed on 6th April, 1976. He preferred an appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge and that appeal was dismissed on 11th March, 1979. The learned Senior Civil Judge while deciding the appeal had characterised the appellant as a liar and had concurred with the view taken by the Trial Court that the appellant had not proved his possession.

(2.) In the suit filed by the respondents for possession in 1979 the appellant as a contesting defendant again took the plea that he had been in possession for a long time and, therefore, respondents 1 to 5 would not be entitled to recover possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit. In the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge apart from the points taken in the Trial Court it was submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The land had been subject mater ot acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1897. It was also contended that by virtue of the provisions of Delhi Land Restriction of Transfer Act, 1972 any purcahse by the respondents would not clothe them with any right. The learned Additional District Judge while dealing with the submissions held as follows at para 5 page 36: "I have gone through the Trial Court record carefully and heard the Counsels for parties patiently. The document Ex. DW I/I perused, it is a notice of unauthorised occupation on the appellant. The same has been discussed and considered by the Trial Court and held in applicable with reasons. This point is not available to the appellant. The next ground the appellant has taken the ground of jurisdiction in appeal in view of provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and Land Acquisition Act. This point was not made the point of control versy nor any issue was framed before Trial Court the same cannot be available in appeal. That too appellant has himself failed to establish his any title in the suit property being unauthorised occupant and trespassers is not to be protected of illegal possession free of cost and allow to defeat the object of law and principles of natural justice. Even if the land is under acquisition process the unauthorised person is not entitled to draw benefit of same. The appellant himself has moved Civil Court previous suit which has gone against him and operated resjudicata in later suit. Mere saying bywitness that plot came under Delhi Land Reform Act is not sufficient. This aspect required to be proved to the fullest extent that the Civil Court could not at all be approached in any respect. But here appellant himself has availed remedy from Civil Court. This ground of objection also not available to the appellant. "

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge further said in para 7 page 38 : "Now to consider whether the appellant acquired any Bhumidhar right ousting respondents. Neither such issue was pressed before he Trial Court nor finds any place in pleadings of the appellant and not made a point of controversy before Trial Court nor any evidence to prove such rights adduced before Trial Court. In view of these facts and circumstances the appellant's this objection also not tenable and the very ground is not available to him. On the other hand the verdict of unlawful occupance of appellant is on the record."