Delhi High Court
Satyawan vs Dharam Pal on 7 November, 2014
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th November, 2014
+ RSA 322/2014 & C.M. Nos.18138-39/2014
SATYAWAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate
versus
DHARAM PAL ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
Appellant is the plaintiff whose suit for recovery of possession of
part of property No. AB-38/2, Amar Puri, Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj, New
Delhi, comprising ground floor, first floor, second floor and terrace floor
with roof rights, as shown in the site plan in terms of Partition Deed of
30th August, 1999 was decreed by the trial court and vide impugned
judgment of 27th August, 2014, the First Appellate Court has reversed the
trial court's judgment and dismissed appellant's suit while noting that the
suit property is owned by mother of the parties, who is not a party to the
aforesaid Partition deed.
The opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment notice the facts
in this case and so, the factual background of this case is not reproduced
RSA NO. 322/2014 Page 1
herein.
At the hearing, it was contended by learned counsel for appellant
that no issue of ownership of the suit property was there and so, the
findings of the First Appellate Court on the ownership issue are perverse.
It was contended by learned counsel for appellant that Partition Deed of
30th August, 1999 was not in question and the status of respondent was of
licensee only and respondent had admitted signing of the aforesaid
Partition Deed of 30th August, 1999 and so, the impugned judgment
deserves to be set aside and trial court judgment ought to be restored.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, trial
court's judgment and the material on record, I find that no doubt
respondent had signed the aforesaid Partition Deed of 30th August, 1999
but the stand of respondent has been that he is illiterate and he had signed
the Partition Deed of 30th August, 1999 without knowing its contents and
that contents of aforesaid Partition Deed were not explained to him.
It is pertinent to note that owner of the suit property is the mother
of parties who has not signed the aforesaid Partition Deed of 30th August,
1999 (Ex. PW-1/3). During the course of hearing, it was brought to the
notice of the Court that the mother of parties is alive but for reasons best
known to appellant, no application for additional evidence has been filed
along with this appeal to obtain deposition of mother of parties.
In a suit for recovery of possession of property, the question of
ownership of property is of prime importance and even if no specific
issue is claimed, still a party who is trying to obtain possession of
property is required to satisfy the court about the ownership of the
property.
RSA NO. 322/2014 Page 2
In view of the aforesaid, I find that there is no perversity in the
findings returned by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of
law arises in this second appeal. Consequentially, this appeal and
applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 07, 2014
r
RSA NO. 322/2014 Page 3
