Ravi Dutt Sharma vs Darshan Lal & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6034 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                   Date of Decision: November 21, 2014
+     RSA 353/2014
      RAVI DUTT SHARMA                                    ..... Appellant
                   Through:             Mr. R.P. S. Bhagai, Advocate

                          versus

      DARSHAN LAL & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                   Through:             Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

%                          (ORAL)
C.M. No.19146/2014

There is delay of 720 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal. The averments made in the application are supported by affidavit of the counsel.

The application is allowed and delay in re-filing is condoned. RSA 353/2014

Appellant-plaintiff's suit for declaration regarding Sale Deed of 26th December, 1995 being null and void and the consequential injunction stands dismissed by the trial court and in the first appeal, appellant- plaintiff's suit was partly allowed on issue No.3 regarding proper valuation of this suit. The factual background of this case stands noted in the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration.

At the hearing, the argument raised by counsel for appellant is that

RSA NO. 353/2014 Page 1 the General Power of Attorney is forged and the Sale Deed in respect of the suit property is barred by Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

Upon hearing and on perusal of judgment of the courts below and the material on record, I find that no issue of suit being barred by Section 33 the Delhi Land Reforms Act was agitated qua the impugned Sale Deed. In fact, the impugned Sale Deed is registered one and it contains presumption of being legitimately executed, which does not stand rebutted by the appellant. Smt. Ram Kali has not signed the impugned Sale Deed and she has not come forward to depose that her signatures were obtained on the impugned Sale Deed by fraud or misrepresentation. She has not challenged the General Power of Attorney as well as the impugned Sale Deed.

The bar of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was not effectively pressed on behalf of appellant and the finding returned by the trial court, which stands affirmed by the First Appellate Court is that the suit property has been acquired by the Government and the suit has become infructuous. At the hearing, no meaningful arguments were raised to assail the aforesaid finding, which goes to the root of the matter.

In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no perversity in the findings returned against the appellant. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                                         (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE
NOVEMBER 21, 2014
r


RSA NO. 353/2014                                                       Page 2