N v. eq

3. The trial Court, while deciding the case, rightly crystallized the following four points for decision:- "D That she was in actual possession of the house. ii) Her house was demolished by the defendant. G ill) The defendant had apolicy to allot alternative flat to the evictees whose houses were demolished in the area. iv) Defendant had actually allotted the flats similarly situated persons whose houses were also demolished wi the plaintiff."

4. The trial Court has relied upon the testimonies of PW-1 to P\A/-3, and which witnesses proved the stand of the plaintiffs/respondents that the plaintiffs/respondents were in possession of the properties at Patel Garden and which were demolished in the absence of the plaintiffs who were out of station, it was further deposed by these witnesses that they aiongwith ^ officials of the appellant transferred the goods of the plaintiffs to the present flats being occupied by the plaintiffs/respondents. More importantly, the trial Court relied upon the survey conducted by the appellant itself, proved on record as Ex,PW4/A, wherein the plaintiffs/respondents were found to be residing in the properties at Patel Garden which were demolished. RSA NOS.S7/2010 &88/2010 ^ " 5- Accordingly, the Courts below have upheld the entitlement of the respondents/plaintiffs for nnandatory injunction for regularization of the suit properties in their names.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that oral testimonies of the witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 ought not to have been believed by the Courts below in the absence of any proof of ration card or of the plaintiffs having resided at Patel Garden. It was argued that since no demolition slips were issued to the plaintiffs/respondents they were not entitled to regularization of subject flats. ^"6. In my opinion, the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/DDA do not raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) inasmuch as they deal with appreciation of evidence only. In a civil case, the Court weighs respective evidences, and then decides as per balance of probabilities, as done by the Courts below. In fact, the arguments as raised are such which would not have been accepted even in a first appeal. In my opinion, the findings and conclusions of the Courts below are strengthened by the fact that if someone else other than the plaintiffs were in occupation of the properties at Patel Garden, New Delhi such persons would have applied to the DDA for allotment/regularization and admittedly no person has claimed alternative flats on the basis of demolished properties which the RSA Hos.87/2010 &88/2010 ^ /-~S, •V plaintiffs/respondents claimed belonged to them. This Court under Section 100 CPC is only entitled to interfere with two concurrent judgments of the Courts below if there are substantial questions of law. The decisions of the Court below are based on the documents of the appellant/DDA itself, viz. the survey report Ex.PW4/A. Also no one else as stated above, has claimed alternative allotment from the appellant on the basis of demolished properties of the respondents/plaintiffs at Patel Garden, New Delhi.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits whatsoever in these appeals, which are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 13, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne RSA Nos.87/2010 & 88/2010 -r