Smt. Puran Devi vs Smt. Ram Pyari
2014 Latest Caselaw 5875 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    Date of Decision: November 17, 2014
+     RSA 344/2014
      SMT. PURAN DEVI                                    ..... Appellant
                   Through:             Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate

                          versus

      SMT. RAM PYARI                                     ..... Respondents
                   Through:             None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Parties are the real sisters. Respondent-plaintiff's suit for partition stands decreed by the trial court and is also affirmed in appeal by the First Appellate Court.

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

At the hearing, question of ownership of the suit property is raised by learned counsel for appellant by contending that suit property is a self acquired property of the appellant and that the house tax receipt on record is not sufficient to prove the ownership of the suit property. Thus, setting aside of the judgment of the courts below is sought in this appeal.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the material on record, I find that appellant's plea of suit property being self acquired stands negated by the courts below. Appellant-defendant had

RSA No. 344/2014 Page 1 deposed before the trial court as DW-2 to assert that the suit property is self acquired and findings returned by trial court on this crucial issue are as under:-

"The onus to prove this issue was placed on the defendant. It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit for partition of the suit property since the suit property is a self acquired property of the defendant and father of the parties to the suit was not the owner of the suit property. It is also contended by the defendant that the suit property was constructed by her from her hard earnings, after possessing the same which was initially kaccha land/jungle land.

The defendant got herself examined as DW 2 in support of her contentions. As per the testimony of DW 2, suit property was acquired and constructed by her after about 2 years of her marriage. It has not been explained as to how at such a tender age one can be able to encroach upon about 100 sq. yards of jungle land and raise construction thereon. It is further admitted by DW 2 that she has no proof regarding purchase of building material for the purpose of construction of the suit property nor there is any documentary evidence available with the DW 2 in the form of any tax receipt/ration card or any document in respect of the suit property. DW 2 further states to have spent around Rs.50,000/- on construction of the suit property, but it was also not explained as to how this much amount which is substantial one at the relevant time, could have been

RSA No. 344/2014 Page 2 spent by the defendant on the construction of the suit property when the source of income of the defendant is stated to be out of selling vegetables.

On the other hand, the plaintiff led the documentary evidence to show the ownership of Late Sh. Ganga Dass, father of the parties to the suit. As per Ex. PW 4/A, suit property was assessed in the name of Late Sh. Ganga Dass in the year 1958. As per the testimony of PW 4 the notice of assessment was also received by Smt. Razia wife of Late Sh. Ganga Dass at the suit property and further the suit property was revised for House Tax Assessment purposes in the year 1972 wherein notice of revision was again issued in the name of Late Sh. Ganga Dass which was received by himself. The suit property continued to be assessed in the name of Late Sh. Ganga Dass till date. It goes to show that the suit property was assessed for House Tax purposes, even in the year 1958 where as per the testimony of DW 2 the suit property was acquired by her around 1977 and the construction was raised thereon. The office record of MCD Department qua House Tax assessment belie the case of the defendant as the suit property stands assessed to House Tax in the year 1958 itself. Similarly, there is no explanation as to why the suit property was continued to be assessed in the name of Late Sh. Ganga Dass and why no attempt was made by the defendant to get her name entered in municipal records despite knowing about the entries of municipal record to be in the name of Late Sh. Ganga Dass."

RSA No. 344/2014 Page 3 In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no perversity in the afore-noted findings returned against the appellant. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

This appeal and the application are dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                                           (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                             JUDGE
NOVEMBER 17, 2014
mb




RSA No. 344/2014                                                        Page 4