Delhi High Court
Balbir Singh & Ors vs Baljit Singh & Ors. on 15 November, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
R-92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15.11.2010
+ RSA No.118/2001
BALBIR SINGH & ORS ...........Appellants
Through: Mr.Suryakant Singla, Advocate.
Versus
BALJIT SINGH & ORS. ..........Respondents
Through: Mr.R.K.Bindal, Advocate for
respondent no.1.
Mr.L.S.Rana, Advocate for
respondent no.2 to4.
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. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
7.4.2001 which had set aside the finding of the Trial Judge dated
18.12.1997. Trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated
18.12.1997 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appellate
Court had allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
2. The plaintiff Baljit Singh had filed a suit for permanent
injunction. His plea was that he is a tenant of defendants no.1 to 3.
His tenancy comprised of one room, courtyard and a chabutra in
house no.70, Village Khera Khurd, Delhi. Monthly rental was
Rs.250/-. On 08.7.1988, defendant no.4 asked the plaintiff to
vacate the premises. He was threatened again by defendant no.4
on 14.7.1988. He was forcibly tried to be evicted from the suit
property. Suit for permanent injunction was accordingly filed.
3. A joint written statement had been filed by defendants no.1
to 3. Defendant no.1 was the sister of the plaintiff and defendants
no.2 and 3 are her sons. Contention of defendant no.4 who is
stated to the owner and in possession of the property is that this
was a collusive suit filed between the plaintiff and defendants no.1
to 3.
4. In the written statement of defendant no.4, it was contended
that he was the purchaser of this property vide registered sale
deed dated 24.10.1963. A portion of this property had been sold by
him. He is in possession of the remaining portion of the property.
5. The Trial Judge had framed four issues. The impugned
judgment on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence held
that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction; defendants
were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit
property without due process of law.
6. This is a second appeal. It was admitted and the following
substantial question of law had been framed on 24.4.2007:
"1. Whether the respondent is in possession of the case
property in the capacity of a tenant?
2. Whether the findings given by the First Appellate Court is
correct in view of the Local Commissioner's report filed today
and in view of the pleadings?"
7. Thereafter, the report of the local commissioner had been
filed. The said report is dated 17.4.2007. The local commissioner
had been appointed in terms of the order dated 16.4.2007.
He had been directed "to find out as to who is in actual
possession of the premises bearing House No.70, Village and Post
Office Khera Khurd, Delhi."
The local commissioner in his report had stated that when he
reached the site at 1.40 PM, he found one Surinder Singh with
some persons at the disputed property; the witness stated that
Surinder Singh was in possession; statement of one Iqbal was
recorded who stated that Baljit claims tenancy over the suit
property; statement of two other persons Hari Ram and Azad Singh
had also been recorded who stated that Baljit Singh was in
possession of the suit property for the last four years. Photographs
had also been taken depicting the presence of Surinder Kumar.
8. Counsel for the appellant has urged that this report of the
local commissioner advances his submission that the plaintiff Baljit
Singh was never in possession of the suit property. It was one
Surinder Kumar who is a representative of the appellant.
9. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is
not borne out in any manner from the report of the local
commissioner. No separate statement of Surinder Kumar had been
recorded by the local commissioner. This report nowhere states
that Surinder Kumar claims to the representative of the appellant;
this report does not in any manner advance this submission of the
appellant. In fact, the statement of Iqbal and two other witnesses
noted hereinabove had stated that Baljit Singh is in possession of
the suit property since the last four years.
10. The impugned judgment had given a categorical finding to
this effect. It was in these circumstances that the suit of the
plaintiff had been decreed in his favour. After appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence it was held that the plaintiff is in
possession of the suit property and he cannot be dispossessed
without due process of law; it had noted that even a trespasser is
entitled to protection of law. The contention of the defendant that
he was in possession of the suit property had been negatived.
11. This Court is sitting in second appeal; it can only interfere if
a substantial question of law is raised and not otherwise. The
substantial questions of law had been formulated by this Court and
reproduced hereinabove. Report of the local commissioner filed
thereafter does not in any manner support the stand urged before
this Court by the appellant. Local commissioner had in fact
endorsed the finding of the impugned judgment that Baljit Singh
(in view of the versions of three witnesses examined by him) was in
possession of the suit property since the last four years. Findings
in the impugned judgment not being perverse cannot be interfered
with. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
NOVEMBER 15, 2010
nandan
