Delhi High Court
Lala Ram & Ors. vs Ghasita Ram & Ors. on 6 May, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 06.05.2015
+ RSA No.14/1995
LALA RAM & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, Adv.
Versus
GHASITA RAM & ORS. ... Respondents
Through: Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj,
Adv. for R-1.
+ RSA No.15/1995
LALA RAM & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. B.P. Aggarwal, Adv.
Versus
GHASITA RAM & ORS. ... Respondents
Through: Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj,
Adv. for R-1.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
RSA No.14/1995 & RSA No.15/1995 Page 1 of 7
V.K. SHALI, J (ORAL).
1. These are regular second appeals, pending in this Court for
the last more than two decades. The appeals had come up for the
purpose of admission on 09.02.1995, when notices were directed
to be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the
appeals be not admitted. After issuance of the notice, as there
were 12 appellants, one or the other appellants unfortunately kept
on dying and steps were taken for bringing on record the legal heirs
of such deceased appellants. In this whole process more than two
decades have gone by.
2. These being the regular second appeals, as a matter of fact,
notices could have been issued to the respondents only if the
appellants had satisfied the Court that the appeals involve any
substantial question of law. Earlier also almost two years back
when I was sitting on this roster on 31.10.2013, I had taken note of
the fact that the appeals have been pending for almost 18 years
RSA No.14/1995 & RSA No.15/1995 Page 2 of 7
and there has been no formulation of any substantial question of
law. The matters are fixed for today since Mr.Aggarwal, learned
counsel for the appellants was not available yesterday.
3. Mr.Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, prays for an
adjournment today also. However, it is not possible to
accommodate Mr.Aggarwal as the matters are old and pending in
this Court for more than two decades.
4. I have heard Mr.Aggarwal for some time. He has contended
that the only substantial question of law, which arises for
consideration, is with regard to interpretation of document Ex.D-2
which is an extract from Mutation Register in respect of suit
property on the basis of which the suit for possession was filed by
the appellants. It has been contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the learned trial Court had decreed the suit in
favour of the appellant, however, on appeals being preferred by
RSA No.14/1995 & RSA No.15/1995 Page 3 of 7
the respondents, the first Appellate Court has reversed the finding.
He has contended that a perusal of the document Ex.D-2, contents
of which are reproduced in the trial Court judgments and as well as
the first Appellate Court judgment, clearly reflects that the
predecessor in interest of the appellant was the owner of the 'Piao'
and 'Dharamshala' and, therefore, the suit was not only
maintainable but the appellant was entitled to a decree of
possession which was passed initially by the trial Court but reversed
by the first appellate Court to the extent that the first Appellate
Court has mis-interpreted the entries in the document.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and also gone through the records.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant first based his claim in
the suit for possession on an oral Gift of ownership in respect of the
suit property. The document, which the appellant produced to
RSA No.14/1995 & RSA No.15/1995 Page 4 of 7
support his ownership through Gift is Ex.D-2. The first Appellate
Court has observed that Ex.D-2 as well as the order of the Revenue
Officer dated 30th August, 1931 on the basis of which the trial Court
had decreed the suit in favour of the appellant do not prove the
transfer of ownership/gift in respect of the suit property in favour
of the appellant. On the contrary both these documents clearly
mention that the appellant was not the co-sharer but only a
Manager of the 'Piao and Dharmshala'. This is reflected by the use
of the terminology in Ex.D-2 as the appellant being 'Mohatamim'
(Manager) meaning thereby that he does not have any ownership
right of a co-sharer in the common land. Similarly, in the order
dated 30.08.1931, i.e., the order of the Revenue Officer has taken
note of the fact that Ramji Lal as a 'Hiseydaar' (Co-sharer) has the
right of ownership while as the appellant's predecessor in interest
was 'Mohatamim' (Manager) and does not have any right of
ownership.
RSA No.14/1995 & RSA No.15/1995 Page 5 of 7
7. Mr. Aggarwal has also contended that the Ld. Appellate
Court while interpreting the entry made in the Column no. 10 of Ex.
D-2 has not considered that 'Piao-Dharmshala' cannot be
construed to be a 'Donee' of the suit property.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the documents, which are
being relied upon by the appellant, are by no stretch of imagination
to be construed as documents proving gift of ownership. If that be
so there is no question of interpretation of the aforesaid
documents much less it can be said that it requires any
interpretation of these documents and hence involves substantial
question of law.
9. For the reasons mentioned above I am fully satisfied that the
present appeals do not raise any question of law much less a
substantial question of law so as to warrant any further
consideration of the present appeals.
RSA No.14/1995 & RSA No.15/1995 Page 6 of 7
10. Dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
MAY 06, 2015
ss
