BHOP LAL Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal:-

(2.) The suit for injunction was in respect of a residential kotha situate in khasra No.114/16 in an extent of 195 square yards equivalent to 6 1/2 marlas measuring 44'x40' within specified boundaries. The plaintiff's right of claim to the property by virtue of purchase said to have been made by him from one Partap Singh by a document dated 26.11.1982 and that the defendant was attempting to interfere with his possession with the help of police, he being an employee in the Delhi Police. The threat of dispossession of the plaintiff was said to be the cause of action for the suit instituted on 11.12.1982. The defendant set up a rival document of purchase from one Nehru Lal and Moti Lal that distributed the property as situate in khasra No.1517 and contended that he had been in actual possession of the property and he had let out the property to one Charan Singh and Babu Lal. At the trial plaintiff examined several witnesses to say that he was in possession of property while the defendants also examined oral evidence and filed documentary evidence to support his plea that he was in possession of the property.

(3.) The trial Court found that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had established title. The trial Court relied on a document filed by the plaintiff himself namely a judgment in Case No.288 instituted by certain persons claiming as biswedars against the present plaintiff and three others including one Girraj and Kishan Lal contending that Girraj and Kishan Lal were to be a restrained against alienation of property indiscriminately more than they are entitled. The Court reasoned that the defendant who was claiming under Partap Raj in turn claimed as a donee from Girraj and Kishan Lal and as persons, who had dealt with more extent of properties than what they were entitled to, the plaintiff had not shown that Partap Raj was entitled to property to constitute a valid sale in his favour. The Court also examined defendant's document and found that it referred to some other khasra number which had no bearing to the khasra No.144/16 and held that defendant's purchase also was not valid. Appraising the oral evidence of witnesses, the Court found that it was not merely a vacant land but a residential kotha and even a person, who claimed to be actually in possession of property was examined by the defendant to support his plea that the plaintiff was not in possession. The Court found also that in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, the property had been attached and the property was found to be in possession of property for its being protected till displaced in accordance with law. The suit was, therefore, dismissed on a finding that the plaintiff had not established his possession but the defendant's possession had been so established.