Darbari Lal vs Kartar Singh (Died) by Lrs. and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is defendant''s appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge affirming in appeal the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

Briefly put, plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the house as detailed in the head note of the plaint on the ground that he purchased the same vide sale deed dated 21.11..1984. It is sometime thereafter that Darbari Lal in connivance with the vendor forcibly took possession of the property. Hence the present suit.

Darbari Lal-defendant No. 1 alone contested the suit. It was stated that in fact he purchased the house from defendant No. 2 - Inder Singh vide sale deed dated 19.12.1985 and so the plaintiff has no cause to file the present suit. In fact, he had been a tenant in the house in dispute which he happened to purchase vide sale deed dated 19.12.1985.

On the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed. Primarily the contest revolved around determining as to whether the plaintiff purchased the house in suit from Inder Singh defendant No. 2 and secondly as to whether Darbari Lal, the present appellant has been a tenant of the house and if so to what effect.

Trial Court after considering the evidence led finally came to the conclusion that the plaintiff having purchased the house in dispute vide sale deed dated 21.11.1984 has a valid title and so the sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of Darbari Lal does not affect his proprietary rights in any manner. In respect of issue pertaining to tenancy of Darbari Lal, the Court came to the conclusion that this plea has been raised in collusion with the erstwhile owner. Precisely for this reason Inder Singh-the vendor did not contest the suit nor appeared in the witness box to support one or the other case set up by the contesting parties. Suit was accordingly decreed.

Lower appellate Court once again examined the matter afresh. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the earlier sale deed be taken to be genuine yet it is not clearly established that the plaintiff is owner of the site/the house in dispute as the boundaries given in the sale deed do not tally with the one found by the Local Commissioner. Not only this even the area purchased vide sale deed, annexure P-l, does not tally with the area as measured by the Local Commissioner. This way, the judgment and decree of the trial Court deserves to be reversed. Similarly, it was argued that no cogent reason has been assigned by the trial Court in not relying upon the receipts, exhibits D-3 to D-6, vide which the appellant had been paying rent in respect of the premises in dispute. These documents if properly perused clearly prove that the appellant has remained in possession as tenant at will before purchasing the property vide sale deed dated 19.12.85. Lower Appellate Court on carefully examining the evidence finally came to the conclusion that there is no ambiguity about the location of the house in dispute. When the boundaries as given in the sale-deed are compared with the site plan the same tally in respect of three sides and on the fourth side there is a house of the owner. Similarly, after noticing the slight discrepancies in the area of the house in dispute the Court found it to be quite insignificant thus causing no doubt as to the authenticity of the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff. Similarly, the Court found no substance in the contentions of the appellant that now there exist two rooms whereas earlier in the site plan it had been shown to be one. Dealing with the receipts, exhibits D-3 to D-6 (Rent receipts) the Court noticed that since Inder Singh has not cared to come and prove these receipts and that these receipts are not for the whole period during which the appellant is stated to have remained in occupation of the property as a tenant at will, the same deserves to be brushed aside. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed.

The learned counsel for the appellant has almost reiterated the same objections which somehow did not find favour with the Courts below. Counsel once again highlighted the discrepancies with regard to the area purchased, its location as well as the status of the appellant before he purchased the property. Questions sought to be raised are questions of fact and so cannot be a matter of fresh appraisal unless the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below can be termed to be wholly unwarranted as per facts on record or otherwise vitiated. The counsel for the appellant has failed to bring any such infirmity in the approach of the Courts below. Admittedly, the appellant is also laying claim to the property on the basis of sale deed dated 19.12.1985 i.e. a document which has come into existence after the sale deed of 21.11.1984. Thus, the later sale deed even if it be a genuine transaction cannot take away the valuable rights of the plaintiff. In fact, the erstwhile Inder Singh having already parted with the proprietary rights in respect of the house vide earlier sale deed was left with no right and thus confers no right upon the present appellant. Since the appellant has failed to establish his tenancy rights the relief of possession sought by the plaintiff and granted by the Court below is according to law. Appeal being devoid of substance is consequently dismissed.

No order as to costs.