Delhi High Court
Ashok vs Smt. Natho Devi on 15 February, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15.02.2011
+ R.S.A.No.28/2011
ASHOK ...........Appellant
Through: Mr. Somdutt Kaushik, Advocate.
Versus
SMT. NATHO DEVI . .......Respondent
Through: Nemo.
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
05.10.2010 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge
dated 16.09.2009 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Natho Devi
seeking a mandatory injunction and damages against her
defendant/ son had been decreed in her favour. The defendant had
been directed to vacate the suit property.
2. The plaintiff claimed herself to be the registered owner of
property bearing No. 129/61, East Laxmi Market, Delhi-110092;
plaintiff's son was occupying one room, kitchen and common latrin
and both room at ground floor in the suit property. The defendant
misbehaved with the plaintiff. On 26.06.2007, the plaintiff had
debarred the defendant from her properties, both moveable and
immoveable and severed her relations with him. His license was
duly terminated. He was requested to vacate the suit property but
he did not. Present suit was filed for mandatory injunction
directing the defendant to vacate the suit property as also damages
@ `4,000/- per month.
3. In the written statement, it was contended the suit property
is an ancestral property and the plaintiff has no cause of action
against the defendant. Issues were framed. On the basis of oral and
documentary evidence led by the respective parties, suit of the
plaintiff was decreed. The plaintiff had proved the sale deed of the
suit property Ex. PW-1/B. Site plan had been proved as Ex.PW-1/A.
Notice terminating the license of the defendant dated 26.06.2007
was Ex. PW-1/E.
4. In appeal the judgment of the trial court was upheld. The
judgment of the trial court called for no interference.
5. This is a second appeal. It is yet at its admission stage. The
substantial questions of law have been formulated on pages 10-11.
They read as follows:-
1) "Whether any license for living in the premises can be granted or
cancelled by any person or his/her authorised representative, who
is not the owner of land/premises?
2) Whether an unauthorized occupant of land can grant/cancel any
license for living on the said land to any person without permission
of the owner?
3) Whether an unauthorized occupant of land can evict any other
occupation from the land?
4) Whether a person can be said to be the owner of the property
without any title-document/sale-deed?
5) Whether a person, who is not owner nor authorised representative
of owner of land can issue license to the occupier of land?
6) Whether as per revenue record, produced by witness can be
ignored, it is established that Smt. Natho Devi was not the owner
of Khasra No. 36/24 and its parts 1 to 4 and also in khasra No.
36/23/2, no mutation has been recorded in the name of Smt. Natho
Devi as per revenue record?
7) Whether a person can claim ownership on the basis of sale-deed of
the land without proving its genuineness?"
6. Admittedly the parties were sharing the relationship of
mother and son. The contention before this Court is that the
plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property; attention has been
drawn to the cross-examination of PW-1 (the plaintiff) wherein she
had stated that this property was gifted to her; it is submitted that
the sale deed depicting a sale in her favour is thus a contrary plea.
7. Ex. PW-1B which is the sale deed dated 05.04.1972 had been
executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of his three married
daughters who had been described as vendees. This is a registered
document. It was duly proved in the court below. This is also the
averment of the plaintiff in her plaint. She is claiming ownership of
the suit property in terms of her registered ownership by virtue of
this sale deed. It was in the defence of the defendant that he had
stated that this is an ancestral property. The sale deed transferring
rights in the said immoveable property by the father of the plaintiff
in her favour and her two other sisters was for a consideration of
`275/-. This document was admittedly executed between a father
and his three daughters. The one line in the cross-examination of
the plaintiff wherein she had stated that this property was gifted to
her does not take the case of the defendant any far. Testimony of a
witness has to be read as a whole and not in piece-meal. In the
written statement, the defence of the defendant was that the suit
property is an ancestral property whereas subsequently he had
introduced an altogether a new story before the first appellate
court submitting that his mother is not the owner of the suit
property. This had been noted in the impugned judgment.
8. The plaintiff had been able to prove that she was the owner
of the suit property; the defendant only being a licensee was rightly
evicted from the suit property. No substantial question of law has
arisen. There is no merit in this appeal.
9. Appeal is dismissed in limine.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
A
