Delhi High Court
Iqrar Ahmed & Ors vs Allauddin on 15 April, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.S.A. No.202/2011
Decided on : 15th April, 2015
IQRAR AHMED & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. M.P.S. Gahlaut, Advocate.
Versus
ALLAUDDIN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.H. Nizami with Mr. S.S.
Nizami, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellants against the
judgment and decree dated 1.3.2011 passed in first appeal bearing R.CA.
No.19/2008 titled Allauddin v. Iqrar Ahmed & Ors.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also gone
through the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been
able to show any substantial question of law being involved in the matter.
3. I have also gone through the judgment of the first appellate court as
well as the trial court. I also do not find that any substantial question of
law is involved which may warrant consideration of the appeal despite
the fact that it has remained pending in this Court for the last more than
four years.
4. Before closing the case, I may give brief background of the case.
5. The present appellant and others filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction. It was alleged by the appellants that they have
become owners of the property by way of adverse possession and
accordingly had prayed for grant of a declaration. Consequential relief of
permanent injunction was also prayed that they should not be
dispossessed from the suit premises. It was also their case that they were
raising construction which should not be interfered with by the
respondent/defendant.
6. The matter was contested by the respondent/defendant.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, the court framed the following
issues :-
"(1) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?
OPD
(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration
as prayed? OPP
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed? OPP
(4) Relief."
8. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence.
9. So far as the issue of declaration is concerned, the trial court came
to a finding that the appellants/plaintiffs were not able to establish that
they were in occupation of the suit property in a hostile manner qua the
respondent/defendant and, consequently, they were not entitled to a
declaration for being declared as owners of the suit property. However,
so far as the permanent injunction is concerned, the court observed that
since they were in peaceful settled possession of the suit property, they
should not be dispossessed by the respondent/defendant. As regards
construction also, it was observed that the respondent/defendant shall not
interfere with their raising of construction.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed by the
trial court, the respondent/defendant preferred an appeal. The first
appellate court set aside the decree of permanent injunction holding that
the appellants/plaintiffs were rank trespassers and as they were not able to
prove their ownership by way of adverse possession, they could be
dispossessed by the respondent/defendant. However, it is pertinent to
mention that the respondent/defendant had conceded before the trial court
that they would not dispossess the appellants/plaintiffs except in
accordance with due process of law. On the basis of these submissions,
the court set aside the decree of permanent injunction granted in their
favour by the trial court also both with regard to construction and the
dispossession.
11. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned ADJ in appeal,
the present second appeal has been preferred. These facts, as have been
revealed above, do not raise any question of law much less a substantial
question of law which may warrant consideration by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is totally misconceived and the same is
dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 15, 2015
'srb'
