Delhi High Court
Ravi Rawal @ Ravinder Kumar vs Jagan Nath & Anr on 26 February, 2015
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.S.A. No.58/2015
Decided on : 26th February, 2015
RAVI RAWAL @ RAVINDER KUMAR ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Bharat Singh Sisodia & Mr. Anil
Kumar, Advocates.
Versus
JAGAN NATH & ANR ...... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the
judgment dated 17.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge by virtue of which his first appeal bearing R.C.A. No.25/2013 was
dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present appellant had
filed a suit for possession against the respondents claiming himself to be
the owner of 20 square yards of land on the basis of the documents like
power of attorney, receipt, Will, etc. The documents on the basis of
which he was claiming himself to be the owner were not registered. The
learned trial court after framing the issues and permitting the parties to
adduce their evidence; dismissed the suit holding that in terms of Suraj
Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.; (2012) 1 SCC
656, the appellant was not able to establish his ownership in respect of the
suit property and consequently, he could not be permitted to retrieve the
possession from the respondents.
3. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal bearing R.C.A.
No.25/2013 which met the same fate.
4. Still not feeling satisfied, the appellant has chosen to file the
present regular second appeal to contend that it raises a substantial
question of law. For this purpose, the appellant has sought to place
reliance on Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand & Anr.; 188 (2012) DLT
538 to urge that notwithstanding the fact that he has not got the document
of GPA or the agreement to sell or other documents registered still he can
be considered to be the owner in the light of the aforesaid judgment.
5. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment. The facts of the said
judgment are totally different from the facts of the present case. In the
present case, there is a concurrent finding holding against the appellant
that he has not been able to establish his ownership in respect of the suit
property nor has he been able to establish that the person who is
purported to have sold the suit property had a title to the land. The
appellant, in the instant case, has not examined either any attesting
witnesses or any other person except his own self and the one relation to
claim himself to be the owner of the suit property. In comparison to this,
the judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the question which had arisen for consideration was that a
person who is claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property on the
basis of an agreement to sell, power of attorney, etc., it is inescapable
what will be his status keeping in view the provisions under Section 53A
and other related provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
6. The Supreme Court in catena of cases has observed that the law
which is laid down in a given case should not be applied blindly without
reference to the facts of each case. Meaning thereby there must be some
peri materia or comparison or some similarity of facts before what is held
in a judgment is made applicable to the case in hand. That situation is not
available in the present case and consequently, I hold that Ramesh
Chand's case (supra) is not an apt judgment to be relied upon in the facts
of the present case.
7. Since there is a concurrent finding in the present case holding that
the appellant has not been able to establish his ownership of the suit
property, consequently, no substantial question of law arises.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
FEBRUARY 26, 2015
'AA'
