Smt. Shailender Kaur and Ors. v. Shri Sujan Singh and Anr.

1. This Regular Second Appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 27.11.1999 and the first appellate court dated 21.9.2006; by which the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs seeking mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and damages/mesne profits against the defendants with respect to the suit property bearing No.WZ-430, Nanakpura, Hari Nagar, New Delhi has been dismissed.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was owned by late Sh. Harjinder Singh (their predecessor-in-interest) husband of 2014:DHC:857 the appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 and father of other appellants/plaintiffs and the said Sh. Harjinder Singh had granted a licence to the defendants to stay in the suit property. It was pleaded that licence was revoked by issuing of notice dated 23.12.1995 and thereafter the subject suit was filed. Defendants are the nephew (defendant no.1) and nephew’s wife (defendant no.2) of late Sh. Harjinder Singh. Defendant no.1 is the son of Sh. Chanan Singh, brother of late Sh. Harjinder Singh.

3. The case of the respondents/defendants was that the suit property was not owned by late Sh. Harjinder Singh but was owned by Sh. Santa Singh, father of late Sh. Harjinder Singh and late Sh. Chanan Singh. It was pleaded that late Harjinder Singh after the death of Sh. Santa Singh wrongly/illegally got the property mutated in his name in the year 1989, however, illegal mutation cannot confer title. Suit was accordingly prayed to be dismissed.

4. Both the courts below have held that the suit property was not owned by late Sh. Harjinder Singh but by Sh. Santa Singh, father of late Sh. Harjinder Singh and Sh. Chanan Singh, and that the appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove that the sale deed Ex.PW1/2 of the year 1952 was corelatable to the suit property. In any case, the courts below have held that if there is any doubt to the ownership of late Sh. Santa Singh, the same is removed and becomes clear from the mutation documents by which late Sh. Harjinder Singh applied for mutation of the suit property, Ex.DW3/1 to Ex.DW3/5, and in which there are clear cut admissions by Harjinder Singh that the suit property belongs to Sh. Santa Singh. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

5. In this Court, counsel for the appellants sought to argue that once the appellants/plaintiffs proved the sale deed of the year 1952/53 with respect to showing ownership of late Sh. Harjinder Singh of the suit property, the courts below have committed an illegality and perversity in dismissing the suit.

6. I cannot agree inasmuch as the courts below have rightly held that there is nothing to relate the sale deed Ex.PW1/2 that it was of the suit property, and in any case the sale deed was of the year 1952/1953 and late Sh. Harjinder Singh in the documents by which mutation was applied for much later in the year 1989 admitted specifically and categorically that the suit property was owned by Sh. Santa Singh and not by Sh. Harjinder Singh. Therefore, the argument urged on behalf of the appellants is rejected that late Sh. Harjinder Singh was the owner of the suit property.

7. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC inasmuch as the findings and conclusions of the courts below are unimpeachable. The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

FEBRUARY 13, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne