Narender Kumar Sharma vs Ram Kumar Sharma
2014 Latest Caselaw 5515 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                   Date of Decision: 5th November, 2014
+     RSA 319/2014
      NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA                  ..... Appellant
                  Through: Mr. D.R.Jain, Mr. Neeraj Jain &
                           Mr. Bhupesh Kumar, Advocates

                          versus

      RAM KUMAR SHARMA                                   ..... Respondent
                  Through:             Mr. K.L. Bajaj, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                       JUDGMENT

(Oral)

Caveat No. 965/2014 (u/S 148-A CPC)

Respondent is represented through counsel.

Caveat is discharged.

RSA 319/2014 & C.M.No.18024/2014 (for stay) Respondent's suit for possession of suit property stands decreed by Trial Court and is affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The concurrent findings returned by both the courts below are that the Will in question clearly demarcates the respective portions of the parties.

The factual matrix of this case already stands noted in the impugned judgment and needs no reproduction.

At the hearing of this appeal, it was contended by learned counsel for appellant that the requisite court fee has not been paid by respondent

RSA 319/2014 Page 1 and decree for possession of the suit property has been passed without seeking relief of partition of the suit property by metes and bounds.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the material on record, I find that no issue of deficiency of court fee is claimed by appellant and so, in the second appeal, appellant is precluded from urging it. A copy of plaint on record clearly shows that the suit property has been clearly defined and alongwith the plaint, a site plan has been filed wherein the suit property has been shown in red shaded colour. Otherwise also, no issue relating to maintainability of the suit was claimed by appellant and so, appellant is precluded from raising it in this second appeal.

In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Consequentially, this appeal and the application are dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE
NOVEMBER 05, 2014
s




RSA 319/2014                                                            Page 2