Balraj v. Ramphal & Ors

s HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : September 9, 2009 RSA 244/2008 & CM No. 17196/2008 BALRAJ Appellant Through : Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Dutt Baloni, Advocate Versus RAMPHAL & ORS. Respondent Through : Nemo. % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNASURESH

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?

(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?

(3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? I U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH. I. (Oral) For orders, see file of RSA No.245/2008. (ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 jk RSA 244/2008 Page 1 ofl Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ! i % HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : September 9, 2009 RSA 245/2008 & CM No. 17198/2008 jVlATHURASINGH &ANR. Appellant Through : Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Dutt Baloni, Advocate Versus BHAGWAN DASS Respondent Through : Nemo. AND RSA 244/2008 & CM No. 17196/2008 BALRAJ Appellant Through : Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Dutt Baloni, Advocate Versus RAMPHAL & ORS. Respondent Through : Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?

(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?

(3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? s Page lof6 ----- • s I U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH. I. (Oral)

¶1Since botli appeals are connected subject matter of both suits is Plot No.26, Begumpur Park (Harijan Colony), New Delhi and the evidence has been recorded in one case i.e. Suit No. 307/1981 and the said evidence has been assessed by the trial court and the appellate court in both the suits, they are taken up together and dealt with by this common judgment.

¶2Respondent Bhagwan Dass (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction against appellants as well as Sh. Karam Singh and Khiman seeking perpetual injunction for restraining them from interfering in the lawful peaceful possession of plaintiff on his plot No.26, Begumpur Park (Harijan Colony), New Delhi, constructed on Khasra No.64,65,78,79,80,81 & 82 of the revenue estate of Village Hojrani of the Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Limited claiming himself to be the owner of the said plot, being allottee same; Delhi State Page 2 of6 ---- .-j. Harijan Cooperative Ltd. vide receipt No.413 dated

29.5.1975. He claimed himself to be in physical possession of the said plot since after its allotment. The suit was contested by the appellants others. Vide judgment decree dated

8.4.1994, the trial court decreed the suit plaintiff restrained defendants from interfering in the lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the said plot.

¶3Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, three of the defendants Mathura Singh, Karam Singh and Balraj filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge being RCA No.16/06/94. Vide well reasoned judgment dated 31.7.2008, appellate court concurred with the findings trial court on merits of the case finding merits in the appeal, dismissed the same.

¶4The appellants have filed this appeal impugning judgment and decree of the appellate court dated

31.7.2008. The trial court after assessing the oral as well as documentary evidence as adduced proved on record parties concluded Page 3 of6 ----- 11 plaintiff is the allottee of plot No.26 and accordingly decreed the suit. The findings of the trial court on facts case have been concurred appellate court. The substantial question of law formulated by the appellants find mention in para 5 appeal. Perusal record impugned judgment clearly indicates substantial questions of law can be formulated. The fact findings of courts below have been questioned on merits and not on any question of law.

¶5The grievance of the appellants, if any, is against the Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Ltd. who according to appellants forged fabricated the receipts by manipulating the same in favour of the plaintiff and other persons who are members of the Association. Delhi State Harijan Cooperative Ltd. is not a party to the suit.

¶6Therefore, if the appellants have any grievance against the allotment of the suit plot in favour of the plaintiff by Association, remedy lies Page 4 of6 -- elsewhere and not by way of this appeal.

¶7Plaintiff examined Amar Singh Chalia as PW-2. He is one office bearers Association. He testified plot in question was allotted to the plaintiff. Simply because he has been examined as PW-2, does not give any right to the appellants to assail the judgment and decree of the appellate court on grounds had forged and fabricated the record and the receipts in favour of the plaintiff.

¶8Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the report of the Local Commissioner, Ex.DW3/l, in suit No.307/1989 which was filed by defendant Balraj (appellant No.2), subject matter of which was Plot No.26, Begumpur Park (Harijan Colony), New Delhi, to emphasise an illegality was committed by the appellate court while construing the report of the Local Commissioner which was not challenged by either parties. The fact remains, the report of the Local Commissioner has been taken care of by the appellate court. Perusal of the record makes it clear that there was no basis Page 5 of6 ----- I, ( « for the Local Commissioner to come to a conclusion that Balraj was in possession of the said plot. His report is contradictory in nature. At one place the Local Commissioner has referred to the information received by him from a neighbour, according to whom the wood-logs lying in the plot belonged to the government. As per the report both the parties claimed themselves to be in possession of the tin-shed, Bitora, bricks etc. Therefore, to say that appreciation of report of Local Commissioner appellate court was not correct raises a substantial question of law is not correct.

¶9Hence, I conclude there is substantial question of law involved in these appeals as the entire case is decided on the basis of the evidence adduced on the record. The fact finding of the trial court has been upheld appellate court. Under these circumstances, appeals are dismissed. (ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 jk -Page 6 of6 ---------