Delhi High Court
Satyanand vs Jagdish Singh on 1 October, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 01.10.2010
+ RSA No.3/1998
SATYANAND ...........Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
Versus
JAGDISH SINGH ..........Respondent
Through: Mr.Anand Yadav& Ms. Anita Tomar,
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. The impugned judgment is the judgment dated 23.8.1997
which had endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge dated
17.11.1994 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff Satya Nand is a social worker engaged in helping
the needy for getting yoga treatment. He had requested the Delhi
Administration for allotment of land under the 20 Point
Programme. In the year 1976 the Delhi Administration had
allotted plots of land to poor people; plaintiff had been allotted
plot no.228A, Ambedkar Nagar, Haidarpur, New Delhi. An initial
deposit of Rs.45/- was made by the plaintiff; possession of the plot
was handed over to him; plaintiff had constructed only a portion of
the plot. It is pointed that the defendant being an official person
had dispossessed the plaintiff and built a double storied house on
the said plot; this was in a part of the portion of the said land; in
RSA No.3/1998 Page 1 of 4
1991 defendant again dispossessed the plaintiff. Plaintiff
accordingly filed the present suit for possession and mesne
profits.
3. Before the Trial Judge on 29.9.1993 four issues were framed
and thereafter on 4.3.1994 an additional issues was framed. The
said issues read as follows:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is allottee of land in dispute? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of land in
dispute? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit? OPP
4. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court
fee & jurisdiction? OPD
Additional issue
Whether the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the suit
property in the year 1981 by the defendant and after that
defendant constructed double storey building on it.? OPP"
4. Plaintiff had examined two witnesses. Patwari had come
into witness box as PW-1. Plaintiff had examined himself as
PW-2; he had proved his caste certificate showing himself as
"Kabir Panthi" Ex.PW-2/1, the LR Receipt, had a cutting; No.309
had been scored off, No.228A had been written. This had been
admitted by PW-1. PW-1 further admitted that a plot had been
allotted to him in Mangolpuri which had been demolished and an
alternate plot had been allotted to him in Mangolpuri. Trial Court
had noted that the plaintiff had not been able to prove his
allotment; no allotment letter had been proved; it had noted that
the plaintiff had admitted that he had got a plot allotted to him in
Mangolpuri; he could not, thus under the 20 Point Programme get
another plot in Haidarpur. Trial Judge had also noted that a
contrary stand has been set up by the plaintiff; whether he was
dispossessed in 1982 or in 1991 was not clear even to himself.
RSA No.3/1998 Page 2 of 4
The suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed.
5. The impugned judgment vide judgment and decree dated
23.8.1987 endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge. Plaintiff was
held entitled to no relief.
6. This is a second appeal Court. The appeal had been
admitted on 19.1.2000. Perusal of the record shows that even
after the admission of the appeal no substantial question of law
has been formulated till date. The substantial question of law has
also not been formulated in the body of the appeal.
7. Arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant in person; it appears
that after the filing of the appeal, the appellant has obtained a law
degree; he has now addressed his arguments in person. It has
been specifically put to the appellant about the substantial
question of law which are sought to be raised by him. It is pointed
out that the grounds of appeal are in fact the substantial questions
of law raised by him. These grounds are four in number; they
read as under:
"(1A) That para No.4 of the Judgment is in totally wrong. This is
the contention of respondent who is nothing to the suit property
besides Trespasser where as appellant is owner, allottee of the
suit property, neither any construction was made nor gitwar was
on the suit property. It was the land of Delhi Administration ,
proof of which is submitted Khatwani given by Tehsildar Delhi of
Khasra No.15, respondent has no proof of that suit property. The
suit property is not even remotely related to respondent by his
forefather, nor by himself.
(B) That the appellant was in possession of the suit property
having ration card, Electoral certificate.
(C) The value of the suit property is not 5 Lakhs. It was
allotted to appellant against Rs.45/=(Forty five) only which is not
for sale business letting out to tenants, but of self use of residence
of allottee only.
(D) There is every cause of action to the present appeal. The suit
RSA No.3/1998 Page 3 of 4
is not barred under Order 11 Rule 2 &3 of the C.P.C. and Order
XXIII C.P.C."
8. The counter arguments of the respondent are to the effect
that these grounds are all fact based. It is pointed out that the
burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to establish his title before
he could obtain a decree of possession; he having failed to prove
any documentary evidence; his oral version being contrary, the
Courts below had rightly dismissed him claim.
9. This Court is sitting in a second appeal. Although the appeal
had been admitted; the substantial question of law had not been
framed. The arguments addressed before this Court clearly show
that the contentions raised by the appellant are factual in nature.
This Court is not a third fact finding court. There is no document
on record which can substantiate the claim of the appellant that
he was allotted plot no.228A, Haidarpur, New Delhi; in fact he had
admitted before the Trial Court that he had got an alternate plot
allotted to him at Mangolpur. In this view of the matter, he could
not have got allotted another plot to him at Haidarpur under the
20 Point Programme which was a programme allotting plots to
persons without any land; this scheme would be contrary to the
tenor and version of the plaintiff.
10. No substantial question of law has arisen in this appeal; this
appeal has been admitted mechanically. There is no merit in it; it
is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 01, 2010
nandan
