Delhi High Court
Ganga Sagar Chaurasia vs Sheela & Ors. on 30 January, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 115/2013
% 30th January, 2014
GANGA SAGAR CHAURASIA ......Appellant.
Through: counsel. (appearance not given)
VERSUS
SHEELA & ORS. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. On the first call, a pass-over was sought. On the second call also
pass-over is prayed. It is not possible to keep on passing over matters, and
counsels if they are accommodated must appear on the second call. I have
therefore heard the counsel for the respondents and after perusing the record,
am proceeding to decide this appeal.
2. This regular second appeal is filed by the defendant-tenant against
whom the courts below have decreed the suit for recovery of rent.
3. The respondents-plaintiffs are admittedly the legal heirs of the
original owner, and therefore their ownership really cannot be disputed by
RSA 115/2013 Page 1 of 3
the appellant. I may note that the courts below have noted that appellant
claimed ownership of the suit property, but admittedly, not a single
document was filed to prove his claim of ownership of the suit property.
This aspect is dealt with by the first appellate court in para-7 of the
impugned judgment and the same reads as under:-
"7. Coming to the first objection, appellant's case is that he
had purchased the suit property from the defendant in 1992.
Defendant as DW1 however, admitted in cross-examination that
he had not filed any document of ownership of the suit property
and had also not filed any suit for declaration for proving his
ownership on the suit property. He has also stated that he had
obtained thumb impression of the deceased Ghanshyam Dass
on two papers but did not produce the same. Thus, as per
record, defendant had not produced any document to show his
ownership in the suit property. Further it is an admitted case of
the parties that appellant/defendant had initially been inducted
as tenant by Ghanshyam Dass. Death of Ghanshyam Dass is
also not disputed. Plaintiffs are the L.Rs. of deceased and there
is no dispute in regard to interse claim of L.Rs of the said
Ghanshyam Dass. Ld. Trial Court has taken into account all
relevant facts in regard to the entitlement of the plaintiffs.
Defendant had not been able to show any document to prove his
ownership of the suit property. The defence of the defendant
was thus unsubstantiated. The Ld. Trial Court had therefore,
rightly decided the issue in favour of the plaintiffs. There is
thus no merit in the first objection of the appellant.
(underlining added)
4. The first appellate court also rightly notes that dismissal in default of
an earlier eviction petition will not operate as res judicata inasmuch as
doctrine of res judicata only operates if a case is decided on merits after trial.
RSA 115/2013 Page 2 of 3
Dismissal in default rightly has not been held a ground for filing of the
present suit for recovery of the rent.
5. Finally, I may note that appellant-defendant's evidence was closed,
inasmuch as the matter was first fixed for appellant-defendant's evidence on
4.9.2010 but no evidence was produced. On 8.7.2011 statement of DW-1
was recorded but cross-examination was deferred for 1.9.2011 when DW-1
did not appear and whereupon the evidence was closed.
Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that no
further opportunity is required to be given to the appellant-defendant and
evidence was rightly closed.
6. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises, and
therefore, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JANUARY 30, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
