Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 956 (DEL)

Ali Hussain Khan v. Mahinder Pal Singh

2012-03-06

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, PRATIBHA RANI

body2012
ORDER Caveat No. 241/2012 Counsel as above appears for the caveator/respondent and hence the caveat is discharged. CM. No. 4213/2012 Allowed. CM. No. 4215/2012 For the reason stated in the application, 32 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned. RFA(OS) No. 23/2012 and CM. No. 4214/2012 1. Suit record has been summoned and perused. 2. Respondent's suit, to the extent decree for possession has been claimed against the appellant, has been decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Respondent had sought possession of 160 sq. yds. land comprised in Khasra No. 1498 village Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli, on the averment that he had paid full sale consideration to its owner, Smt. Asha Jindal, on August 31, 1989 and had received possession under an agreement to sell of an even date and had obtained a Will from Smt. Asha Jindal. It was pleaded that a colony called Vasant Kunj Enclave came to be developed around the land in question and the land was a part of the colony. Qua the appellant it was alleged that he was a Chowkidar employed by the Colony Association and that he illegally grabbed the plot. 4. In the written statement filed, the appellant claimed that the land was notified for acquisition and thus pleaded that the respondent had no title to the land. Qua his right, appellant pleaded that he was in uninterrupted possession for the last 20 years and was residing on the land. 5. The written statement being vague, appellant's statement on oath was recorded on December 22, 2010, when he stated on oath, the land belonged to one Jamidar who sold it to one Sh. S.K. Jindal. 6. Now, as per the respondent, he has purchased the land, albeit under an agreement to sell and a Will, from Smt. Asha Jindal wife of Sh. S.K. Jindal and thus there is an admission by the appellant that Smt. Asha Jindal was the owner of the land; when he says that the Jamidar sold the land to Sh. S.K. Jindal, he is obviously confusing between the wife's title and the that of the husband. 7. In any case, the appellant claims title by adverse possession as was argued before the learned Single Judge and also before us, but we find there are no pleadings in the written statement to attract the plea of adverse possession. S.K. Jindal, he is obviously confusing between the wife's title and the that of the husband. 7. In any case, the appellant claims title by adverse possession as was argued before the learned Single Judge and also before us, but we find there are no pleadings in the written statement to attract the plea of adverse possession. What were the hostile acts done or committed or performed by the appellant in respect of the land? None have been pleaded. In what manner they were hostile to the title of the real owner? None have been pleaded. Merely stating that the appellant is in uninterrupted possession of the land does not constitute a sufficient plea of adverse possession. 8. It is settled law that no issue can be settled between the parties on the basis of vague pleadings. 9. It is not pleaded by the appellant that an award has been made qua the land in question and compensation paid. Merely pleading that notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 and the declaration under Section 6 thereof has been issued is neither here nor there. 10. Besides, every person can retain and re-gain possession of a property against any person whose title is inferior. It is only when the title of the opposite party is superior, that possession can neither be protected nor regained by a person. 11. The learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the law on the subject and keeping in view the vague pleadings in the written statement as also the admissions made when appellant was examined on oath, has rightly opined that claim for possession needs to be decreed by applying Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Before concluding, we note that learned Counsel for the appellant admits that the appellant has lost possession because the impugned decree dated December 1, 2011 has since been executed and for which the appellant is to be blamed for the reason, firstly the appeal was filed belatedly and secondly, it was taken back with objections four times resulting in further one month delay being caused and in the interregnum the decree was executed. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine, but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.