Azad Singh (D) Thru His Lrs vs Ram Narayan And Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5753 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Date of Decision: November 12, 2014
+     RSA 329/2014
      AZAD SINGH (D) THROUGH: HIS LRS        ..... Appellants
                    Through: Mr. Ram Ekbal Roy, Advocate

                          versus

      RAM NARAYAN AND ANR.                               ..... Respondents
                  Through: Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% ORAL

C.M.No.18435/2014 (u/S 151 CPC)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

RSA 329/2014 & C.M.No.18433/2014 ( for stay) & C.M.No. 18434/ 2014 (u/O XXII Rule 3 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

Appellants/plaintiffs suit for possession stands dismissed by the trial court while holding that appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership over the subject property. Impugned judgment of 19th July, 2014 affirms the findings returned by the trial court, while noting as under:-

'In the year 1993, there did not exist any shop although there was a building constructed upon the land. It is thus, very

RSA No.329/2014 Page 1 much clear from the above testimony that the plaintiff/ PW1 has admitted that there did not exist any shop in the year 1993 whereas in the plaint para 5, the plaintiff has stated that in the year 1992 his brother Sh. Om Prakash transferred his share of the shop to him for a valuable consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the testimony of the plaintiff runs contrary to his pleadings in terms of the existence of the suit shop in the year 1992. Immediately after the above testimony, the plaintiff/PW1 was put a suggestion that there was already a welding shop of the defendant running at that place to which PW1 denied. The plaintiff/PW1 did not attempt to explain any further details thereafter regarding the existence/ non-existence of any shop or the status of welding shop, if any, of the defendant running at that place.'

The factual background of this case stands already noted in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration.

At the hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs that there was an oral partition of the subject property, which was ancestral and the findings returned by the courts below are erroneous and deserve to be set aside and the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs ought to be decreed.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, trial court judgment and material on record, I find that there is no perversity in the afore-noted findings returned against the appellants/plaintiffs. No

RSA No.329/2014 Page 2 substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Hence, this appeal and applications are dismissed, with no orders as to costs.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                          JUDGE
NOVEMBER 12, 2014
r




RSA No.329/2014                                                      Page 3