Sh Latafat (Painter) vs The Mcd & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4070 Del

*                    HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            R.S.A. No.207 of 2013

                                      Decided on : 10th September, 2013

SH LATAFAT (PAINTER)                               ...... Appellant
              Through:            Mr. Charan Singh & Mr. S.C. Sharma,
                                  Advocates.

                         Versus

THE MCD & ORS.                                    ...... Respondents
             Through:             Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Advocate for R-1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

C.M. No.14158/2013 (for delay)

1. This is an application seeking condonation of 24 days' delay in

filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 24 days in filing the appeal is condoned as 'sufficient cause'

has been shown.

3. The application stands disposed of.

R.S.A. No.207/2013 & C.M. No.14157/2013 (for stay)

1. This is a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the

judgment dated 15.4.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge

dismissing the appeal being R.C.A. No.9/2012 of the appellant upholding

the judgment and decree dated 3.10.2009 passed by the trial court in Civil

Suit No.512/2008.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present appellant

filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be the purchaser

of a built-up stall (thara) bearing Municipal No.79 in Block No.26,

Trilokpuri, Delhi measuring 7 x 6 feet since 9.5.1989. It has been alleged

by him that from 1989 onwards, he is in possession of the said stall and

he had purchased it on the basis of power of attorney and other

documents from one Salim, s/o Babu. Since, he was fearing that he will

be dispossessed, therefore, the said suit for permanent injunction was

filed.

3. The respondent/MCD contested the suit and took the plea that the

appellant was an unauthorized occupant as the said stall was allotted to

one Mohd. Qamar under the terms and conditions of the licence. The

allottee Mohd. Qamar was not entitled to transfer the same to anybody.

Since Mohd. Qamar had transferred the stall to one Salim, s/o Babu in

contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence, accordingly, the

licence was cancelled and possession was sought to be retrieved.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed five

issues. So far as issue No.4 is concerned, it was framed with regard to the

fact as to whether the appellant was entitled to permanent injunction as

prayed for. This issue was decided against the appellant holding the very

allotment of the thara to Mohd. Qamar was by a deed of licence under

which Mohd. Qamar was not entitled to transfer the same and since the

transfer by Mohd. Qamar had been done in violation of the licence to one

Salim, who in turn had further allegedly transferred it to the appellant,

therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any injunction. The learned

trial court, accordingly, dismissed the suit for permanent injunction on the

basis of this reasoning. It also referred to Section 17 (1) (b) of the

Registration Act by holding that a person in order to claim any right, title

or interest in any immovable property must base the same on some

registered document. In the absence of the same, the appellant could not

be considered to be the owner of the thara.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the first appeal being

R.C.A. No.9/2012, in which also he was unsuccessful. Still not feeling

satisfied, the present regular second appeal has been filed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned

counsel has not been able to make out any question of law arising from

the appeal much less substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal

is totally misconceived and the same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 'AA'