Charanjit Singh vs Raj Kumari & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5034 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment : 1st November, 2010


+            R.S.A.No.197/2010 & C.M.19437/2010


CHARANJIT SINGH                               ...........Appellant
                              Through:   Mr.K.K.Rajora, Advocate.

                    Versus

RAJ KUMARI & ANR.                             ..........Respondents
                              Through:   Mr.Rajat Aneja with Ms.Shweta
                                         Singh, Advocates.

                              AND


+            R.S.A.No.198/2010 & C.M.19448/2010


CHARANJIT SINGH                               ...........Appellant
                              Through:   Mr.K.K.Rajora, Advocate.

                    Versus

RAJ KUMARI & ANR.                             ..........Respondents
                              Through:   Mr.Rajat Aneja with Ms.Shweta
                                         Singh, Advocates.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)

1.     These two appeals have impugned the judgment and decree

dated 26.7.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge

dated 11.9.2009. Relevant would it be to state that two appeals

have arisen out of two suits filed by the plaintiff namely Raj

Kumari and another. The first suit was a suit for possession of the

RSA Nos.197/2010 & 198/2010                                    Page 1 of 5
 suit property bearing No.IX/114, Shyam Block, Kailash Nagar,

Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). The second

suit was a suit for recovery of arrears of rent/damages.

2.     The trial judge had decreed both the suits in favour of the

plaintiff vide its judgment dated 11.9.2009. Both these judgments

were reaffirmed by the first appellate court on 26.7.2010.

3.     Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is as follows:

I.     Plaintiff no.1 Raj Kumari was stated to be the exclusive

owner of the suit property. She had purchased it vide a registered

sale deed dated 20.12.2003 from Kamal Kishore, her son who was

the general attorney holder of his father Sh.Hira Lal; plaintiff no.2.

II.    Plaintiff   no.2   had   purchased   the   suit   property   from

defendant Charanjit Singh vide documents i.e. an agreement to

sell, general power of attorney and will all of which were dated

23.7.2003. On the same day, the parties had also entered into a

rent agreement which was to take effect from 25.7.2003. In terms

of this rent agreement the defendant would retain possession of

the property as a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs.6000/- per

month. In terms of the said agreement the plaintiff no.2 delivered

possession of the property to the defendant.

III.   Defendant did not pay the rent. His tenancy was terminated

vide legal notice dated 11.3.2004.

IV.    Two suits i.e. a suit for possession and a second suit for

recovery of arrears of rent/damages were filed.

V.     The defendant in his written statement/counter claim

contended that vide subsequent document dated 6.8.2003 he had

cancelled the aforenoted documents of 23.7.2003 i.e. the general

power of attorney, agreement to sell and receipt.           Further the

RSA Nos.197/2010 & 198/2010                                    Page 2 of 5
 plaintiff had vide rent agreement dated 23.7.2003 agreed to give a

loan of Rs.3 lakhs to the defendant of which only Rs.50,000/- had

been paid; balance sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs was yet payable.

VI.    Trial judge had framed issues in both the suit as also in the

respective counter claims.      Four witnesses were examined on

behalf of the plaintiff and three witnesses were examined on

behalf of the defendant.      Trial judge noted that the documents

dated 23.7.2003 stood proved; these documents were in fact not

disputed by the defendant.      The power of attorney executed by

plaintiff no.2 in favour of his son Kamal Kishore;, the subsequent

sale deed executed by Kamal Kishore in favour of his mother

plaintiff no.1 was proved as Ex.PW1/2.        The defence of the

defendant that he had signed these documents in a state of

intoxication was disbelieved. The subsequent document i.e. the

rent agreement Ex.PW1/10 executed between the parties was also

an admitted document. As per this document the defendant had

agreed to pay Rs.6000/- per month to the plaintiff to stay in the

property as a tenant. Ex.DW1/1 was looked into. By virtue of this

document plaintiff had agreed to give Rs.3 lakhs as loan to the

defendant which was to be returned in two years. His contention

that this amount was not paid was however discarded. Trial judge

decreed the suit for possession as also for recovery of arrears of

rent/damages.

VII.   These fact findings of the trial judge dated 11.9.2009 were

confirmed in appeal by the impugned judgment dated 26.7.2010.

4.     Counsel for the appellant has urged that the findings in the

impugned judgment have incorrectly appreciated the fact that

documents executed by the defendant on 23.7.2003 had stood

RSA Nos.197/2010 & 198/2010                                Page 3 of 5
 cancelled on 6.8.2003; further, the terms of the loan transaction

Ex.DW1/1 had not been honoured by the plaintiff.           In these

circumstances, the suit could not have been filed.

5.    The substantial questions of law have been formulated by

the appellant in the body of the appeal. The same have been read.

These are two appeals and separate substantial questions of law

have been formulated in the two separate appeals. They are all

fact based and border on the question as to whether the notice

sent by the plaintiff to the defendant terminating his tenancy was

a valid notice; whether plaintiff no.2 could have filed the suit when

the property stood transferred to plaintiff no.1.

6.    These are second appeals.       Only and until a substantial

question of law arises, can this court be vested with jurisdiction;

questions of law by themselves are not sufficient to clothe this

Court with jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal.               All

submission made before this court are fact based. Documents by

virtue of which the plaintiff no.2 had become the owner of the suit

property have been delved into         i.e. the documents dated

23.7.2003 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff which

are in fact admitted documents. Plaintiff no.1 had thereafter by

virtue of Ex.PW1/2 a sale deed dated 20.12.2003 had become the

exclusive owner of the suit property. Present suits had been filed

by two plaintiffs i.e. plaintiff no.1 being the owner who had

acquired ownership of this property by virtue of this deed

Ex.PW1/2 and plaintiff no.2 being her husband in whose favour the

documents dated 23.7.2003 had been executed by the defendant.

They had jointly filed the suit.



RSA Nos.197/2010 & 198/2010                                 Page 4 of 5
 7.    No question of law much less any substantial question of law

has arisen in both the appeals. Both appeals as also the pending

applications being without any merit are dismissed in limine.




                                         INDERMEET KAUR, J.

NOVEMBER 01, 2010 rb