.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI
RFA NO. 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
TRILOK CHAND SHARMA ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
MAHENDRA SINGH (Since Deceased) Though LRs. & ...RESPONDENTS
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Registrar.
High Court of Delhi
At New Delhi
Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying Appeal as an urgent one as per the Rules and
orders of this Hon'ble Court in terms of the prayers made in the application.
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANT
ASHIM SHRIDHAR &
NIYATI PATWARDHAN
B-4/227. SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE
NEW DELIII- 110029
Mob: +91-9971547353
[email protected]NEW DELHI
DATE: 26/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI
RFA NO 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
TRILOK CHAND SHARMA ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
MAHENDRA SINGH (Since Deceased) Thought LRs.& ...RESPONDENTS
NOTICE OF MOTION
TAKE NOTICE that the accompanying Appeal is being filed on behalf of the
Appellants and is likely to be listed before the Hon'ble Court on .09.2024 at
10:30 am in the forenoon or any time thereafter at the convenience of the
Hon'ble Court.
A
DVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANT
ASHIM SHRIDHAR &
NIYATI PATWARDHAN
B-4/227. SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI-110029
Mob: +91-9971547353
ashim [email protected]
DATE: 26/09/2022
NEW DELHI
SNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
The Appellant is preferring the present appeal challenging the impugned
judgment and order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Court of Sh. Sachin Jain,
Additional District Judge-02, South-West, District Courts, Delhi in CS DJ No.
15758/2016 whereby the Suit for Possession, Damages, Mesne Profits and
Permanent Injunction filed by the Appellant suit herein was erroneously
dismissed.
That the Appellant/Plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of 7 bighas of
agriculture land, which is part of Khasra No. 19/13/1 min.(4 – 03) and 19/14 (3
– 0), located in the revenue state of Village Badu Sarai, Tehsil Najafgarh, Delhi.
By the registered sale deed dated 02.12.1985 of land was purchased by the
Appellant. That the aforesaid land was duly mutated in the name of the
Appellant/plaintiff in 1987-88.
The appellant herein had filed a Suit in 1991 for Permanent Injunction against
the Respondent before the senior civil judge Tis Hazari delhi, plaintiff claiming
to be the absolute owner above mentioned land. States Que order/ Restrain
order were passed against the defendant on 11.01.1991 from interfering in any
manner of the property of the plaintiff/appellant.
But consolidation proceeding carried out in the village Badu sarai Delhi, which
was notified by the Delhi Govt in year 1996. Whole land of village Badu sarai
was given to consolidation officer. But the Consolidation starts effectively from
march-april in year 2004. Thereafter in August 2005 appellant/plaintiff’s land
was allotted in extended lal dora abadi deh land and suit land in khasra No. 88-
99 and khasra no. 97 respectively.
Consolidation passbook was issued by consolidation officer to
appellant/plaintiff in August 2005 according to sec 33 of East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The above
mentioned land about 50 sq. yard mentioned under khasra No. 97 was
encroached by respondent/defendant and later respondent/defendant encroached
1500 sq. yd. from that land in 2005. thereafter appellant apply to a application
in RTI Act and inform by the information furnished by the SDM Najafgarh
New Delhi clearly indicated that the plaintiff is recorded of above mentioned
land. Thereafter plaintiff/appellant withdraw the suit for permanent injunction
from the court Sh. NK Lakha CIvil Judge on dated 08.01.2008 with the liberty
to file a proper suit. Thereafter appellant/plaintiff given to respondent a legal
notice on dated 09.02.2008. there after on dated 12.03.2008 appellant/plaintiff
file a Present suit for possession, damages, mesne profit mandatory and
permanent injunction on the basis of title suit.
On the basis of pleadings of parties and submissions advance the following
issues were frame wide order dated 12.03.2014. Ld. Trial court framing the 13
issue on the basis of pleading issue No. 3 whether the defendant are in
possession of suit property since or about 18.09.1986 on execution of GPA
agreement etc. in their favour of by the Sh. Ram Niwas for himself and as
attorney of the plaintiff OPD. And issue No. 4 whether the defendant have
become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. OPD
The Ld. Trial Court erred in shifting the burden of proof on the Appellant in as
much as a mere perusal of the issues so framed would reveal that the onus to
prove the principal issue i.e. Issue No.3 " whether the defendant have become
the possession since about 18.09.1986 on execution of GPA. On the contrary a
perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the Ld. Trial Court has
grossly erred in deciding the suit on completely different issues which were
subsequently amended by the Ld. Trial Court itself and further misinterpreting
the said issues and shifting the onus of proof on the Appellant to prove "Prior
dispossession" as against the case of the Appellant which was based on "Title"
and "Possession". Further the plea of adverse possession was pleaded nor
proved by the Respondent. Trial Court, not focus on this matter properly
because respondent said on one side that he purchased the suit land and on the
other hand they claim the adverse possession. In the case “Narasamma Vs.
A.Krishnappa (Dead) Thr. Lrs. on 26 August 2020 SC 4178”. Art. 65
— Adverse possession - Pleas of title and adverse possession cannot be
advanced simultaneously and from same date as it would amount to
contradictory pleas.
Since the very claim of the Respondent was that they came into possession of
the suit property on the basis of the above forged and fabricated documents
GPA on dated 18.09.1986 and When the authenticity of the document itself is in
doubt khasra no is 19/18 & issue by Ram Niwash and not appellant do not stand
proved the Ld. Trial Court could not have relied upon the same to dismiss the
suit of the Appellant or relied upon the mutually inconsistent stand of the
Respondent of having been in adverse possession of the suit property.
In view of finding of trial court on issue No. 8 the present suit of plaintiff for
relief of possession is hereby dismissed along with the cost of the suit and on
the basis of finding of this court on issue No. 4 the defendant are declared to be
the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
Hence the present Appeal
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
Dates Events
02.12.198 Appellant/plaintiff purchase 7 bigha agricultural land bearing
5 khasra No. 19/13/1 [4-0] and 19/14/[3-0] suitated in in revenue
state village Badu sarai wide registered sale deed dated
02.12.1985 from Ran Singh and Naran Singh.
1987-88 Mutation in the name of appellant in revenue record wide
khatoni No. 9/17 year 87-88.
1991 Plaintiff file the previous suit for permanent injunction against
defendant/respondent.
1996 Delhi govt .issue notification in official gazette for consolidation
of village Badu sarai delhi
2004-05 Consolidation proceeding effectively carry out in village
August Land allotted to Appellant/plaintiff by consolidation officer
2005 along with suit land & issue the Pass Book in the name of
appellant & Given possession, exhibit in suit as Ex.P.W.-1/4
09.02.200 Appellant/plaintiff given Legal notice to respondent to vacant
8 the suit land .
12.03.2008 Suit filed by the Appellant seeking Possession, Damages, Mesne
Profits and Permanent Injunction against the Respondent before
the Ld. Trial Court claiming to be the absolute owner with
respect to 7 bhigas of land forming part of Khasra No. 19/13/1
(4-03) and Khasra No. 19/14 (3-0) subsequently converted into
Plots bearing No. 88--99 and the said plots thereafter formed part
of the extended Lal Dora Abadi Residences Aria in the revenue
estate of Village Badu Sarai Tehsil Najafgarh, South Delhi. The
suit property in the subject matter proceedings is Plot No.97.
12.03.2014 The Ld. Trial Court Vide Orders dated 12.03.2014 framed the
issues in the suit filed by the Appellant
2018-2021 The Appellant and Respondent led evidence in the subject.
Matter proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
13.05.2022 The Ld. Trial Court i.e. Court of Sh. Sachin Jain, Additional
District Judge-02, South-West, District Courts, Delhi in CS DJ
No. 15756/2016 whereby the Suit for Possession, Damages,
Mesne Profits and Permanent Injunction filed by the Appellant
herein was erroneously dismissed as title Trilok Chand Sharma
Vs Mahendar Singh & Ors.
28.10.2024 Hence the present Appeal as a indigents Person
