Chattar Singh vs Samay Singh And Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2595 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 13.05.2011

+                 R.S.A.No. 78/2011 & CM Nos.9548-50/2011

CHATTAR SINGH                .                 ...........Appellant
                        Through:    Mr. Santosh Kumar and
                                    Mr.Rajeev Katyan, Advocates.

                  Versus

SAMAY SINGH AND ANR.                            ..........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

01.04.2011 which has endorsed the finding of the trial Judge

dated 28.03.2007 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Chattar

Singh seeking a permanent injunction against three defendants

qua the suit property (i.e Khasra No.27/20/2 yards situated in the

Revenue Estate of village Karawal Nagar, Delhi Illaqa Shahdara)

had been dismissed.

2 The plaintiff claimed himself to be bhumidar and in

possession of the aforenoted suit property; his contention was that

he had purchased this property from Hari Ram (defendant No. 3)

who in turn had purchased it from Zile Singh (defendant No. 1);

defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1. Averments as

contained in the plaint are that defendant No. 1 had sold 250

square yards of land to defendant No. 3 for a consideration of

`15,000/-; sale documents to the said effect had been executed;

this was on 18.03.1991; vacant physical possession of the plot had

been delivered to defendant No. 3 by defendant No. 1 on the same

day. Defendant No. 3 had thereafter vide documents dated

18.10.1999 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar had for a

consideration of `50,000/- sold this 250 square yards to the

plaintiff; receipt to the said effect had been executed; possession

of the land had been taken over by the plaintiff on the same day

i.e. 18.10.1999. The plaintiff had constructed a boundary wall as

also two rooms. The defendants are threatening him to dispossess

from suit land. Suit was accordingly filed.

3 Defendants No. 1 & 2 i.e. father and son had filed a joint

written statement; they had disputed the claim of the plaintiff; the

version of the plaintiff was denied. Defendant No. 3 had filed a

separate written statement. Attention has been drawn to that part

of his written statement wherein he has stated that he had handed

over possession of this plot to the plaintiff on 18.10.1999; it is

pointed out that this an admission made by defendant No. 3; this

could not have been disregarded; provisions of Section 58 of the

Indian Evidence Act takes care of such an admission; the suit of

the plaintiff was liable to be decreed on this count. To support this

argument reliance has been placed upon AIR 1966 SC 405 Bharat

Singh & Others Vs. Mst. Bhagirathi. There is no dispute to this

proposition. An admission if it is clear and unequivocal is a

substantive evidence in view of Section 17 & 21 of the Indian

Evidence Act. However, this admission of defendant No. 3 in his

written statement did not entitle the plaintiff to any relief qua the

present proceedings. The impugned judgment had noted that

defendants No. 1 & 2 had contested the proceedings vehemently;

their contention being that defendant No. 1 had in fact never sold

this land to defendant No. 3; the question of defendant No. 3

thereafter selling it to the plaintiff did not arise; defendant No. 3

could only step into the shoes of defendant No. 1; defendant No. 1

had denied the title of defendant No. 3; question of an admission

in favour of the plaintiff did not arise. This judgment of Bharat

Singh is wholly inapplicable to the factual scenario.

4 Both the fact finding courts had gone in detail dealt with the

evidence of the parties. Relevant extract of the cross-examination

of PW-1 has been extracted in para 11 of the impugned judgment

wherein he had admitted that he has no document; neither any

ration card nor any election card to show that he was in

possession of this suit property; he had also admitted that he is no

residing in the suit land as the two rooms have fallen down. The

testimony of PW-6 Om Prakash had also been adverted to wherein

he has admitted that he had never seen the plaintiff Chattar Singh

in possession of the property. The court had drawn a categorical

fact finding that the plaintiff has not been able to show that he is

in possession of the suit land; question of injunction did not arise.

These are fact finding which are endorsed by the two courts

below. This court is not a third fact finding court.

5 Substantial questions of law have been embodied on page

25 of the paper book. They are all facts based; no substantial

question of law has arisen. There is no merit in this appeal. Appeal

as also pending applications are dismissed in limine.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

MAY 13, 2011 a