Delhi High Court
Satpal vs Satyawan on 26 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 126/2017
% 26th April, 2017
SATPAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate.
versus
SATYAWAN ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.15743/2017 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. No.15744/2017 (for condonation of delay)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of eight
days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RSA No.126/2017 and C.M. No.15742/2017 (stay)
3. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed against the concurrent
judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 1.11.2014 and
the First Appellate Court dated 9.2.2017; by which the suit for
permanent injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed and
the appellant/defendant was injuncted from obstructing the right of
way of the respondent/plaintiff from the main entrance gate of plot no.
5 and also from the public street, for ingress and egress to plot no.6
measuring 120 sq. yds in khasra no.282/2/21 Village Ghuman Hera,
New Delhi. Appellant/defendant was also restrained from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plot no.A-6 of the
respondent/plaintiff as shown in red color in the site plan.
4. The subject suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff
pleading that there are three continuous plots i.e A-4, A-5 and A-6.
Plot no. A-6 belongs to the respondent/plaintiff and plot no. A-4
belongs to the appellant/defendant. The plot in between i.e plot no.A-5
belongs to the father of the parties. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded
that the plot of the father jointly belongs to both the
appellant/defendant as also the respondent/plaintiff and therefore the
appellant/defendant could not encroach/use exclusively upon the plot
no.A-5. Accordingly, the subject suit was filed seeking the reliefs of
injunctions against the appellant/defendant.
5. Appellant/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that
there were two family settlements between the parties, one of the year
1994-1995 and another of the year 2005 reiterating the earlier
settlement, and that as per these settlements the appellant/defendant
gave up his rights in the ancestral properties and in return thereof all
the three plots fell to the share of the appellant/defendant.
6. Both the courts below have arrived at a finding that the
oral family settlement relied upon by the appellant/defendant was not
proved either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence.
The family settlement dated 13.10.2005 was not proved by the
appellant/defendant and the same was only marked as D-1 and was not
exhibited. There was no original document filed with respect to this
settlement dated 13.10.2005 and the document was not proved by
witnessing the signatories of the documents by putting/affixing their
signatures on the documents.
7. The courts below in my opinion have rightly held that the
family settlement relied upon by the appellant/defendant was not
proved and hence the defence raised thereon could not succeed.
8. Another valid reason given by the courts below to discard
the family settlement is that as per the family settlement and the case of
the appellant/defendant, the appellant/defendant had relinquished his
rights in the ancestral properties on account of the family settlement,
but it was found as a fact that the appellant/defendant in fact however
was continuing to pursue litigation with respect to ancestral properties.
9. A second appeal is only maintainable if a substantial
question of law arises. Arriving at the conclusions from the evidence
on record does not raise a substantial question of law, much less when
the appellant/defendant has failed to prove his case of there being the
family settlement dated 13.10.2005.
10. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
APRIL 26, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
