Anoop Kumar Aggarwal v. Shanti Sarup Chowhan Now Deceased Thr Lrs D K Chowhan & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 10, 2018 'Sn'..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 10th July, 2018 + ANOOP KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr S.D.Ansari with Mr I.Ahmed, Advocates with Appellant in person. Versus SHANTI SARUP CHOWHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 06th March, 2017 in RCA No.61359/2016 of the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi] of dismissal of first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated [14th February, 2014 in CS No.596/10/97 (Unique Case ID No.02401C0093482002)] of dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the predecessor of the respondents/defendants for recovery of possession of immovable property with mesne profits. 2. This appeal came up before this Court first on 22.05.2017, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and Trial Court Record requisitioned. 3. The order dated 10.10.2017 records that the respondents No.3 & 5 namely Shri Virender Kumar Chowhan and Smt Meenakshi Chowhan had expired. The appellant filed CM No.5492/2018 for a direction to the remaining respondents to furnish the particulars of the heirs of the deceased respondents No.3 & 5. Vide order dated 20.02.2018, the said application was allowed and the remaining respondents were directed to furnish the particulars. 4. The counsel for the remaining respondents states that the remaining respondents are the only natural heirs of the deceased respondents No.3 & 5 and there are no other heirs of the deceased respondents No.3 & 5. 5. On an oral request of the counsel for the appellant, the respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 6 are also recorded as the heirs of respondents No.3 & 5. 6. Neither while issuing notice nor in any of the subsequent orders, any substantial question of law which arises, was framed or indicated. 7. I have asked the counsel for the respondents/defendants, whether the appeal can be taken up for final hearing and during which, it will also be determined, whether any substantial question of law arises. Counsel for the respondents/defendants has fairly agreed. 8. The counsels have been heard and the impugned judgment and the Trial Court Record perused. 9. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit, from which this appeal arises, for recovery of possession of one room on the first floor of property No.2036, H.C.Sen Road Fountain Gali, pleading (i) that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the property No.2036, H.C.Sen Road Fountain Gali; (ii) that the respondent/defendant Shri Shanti Sarup Chowhan, Advocate (whose legal heirs the present respondents/defendants are) had trespassed into the said room in collusion with the other tenants in the property and the respondent/defendant had no right, title or interest in the room in question; iii) that the respondent/defendant, inspite of being called upon, had failed to handover peaceful vacant possession to the appellant/plaintiff. 10. The respondent/defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, pleading (i) that he was in possession of one room measuring 17 ft.x14 ft. with two doors on the first floor of the property, since before 1967, without paying any rent to Shri Nirender Kumar Brij-Rattan Mahta of Bombay, owner of the property; ii) the owner of the property did not raise any objection to the possession of the respondent/defendant of the said room; iii) that in 1984 riots, the entire building was destroyed and the respondent/defendant, being an Advocate, was paid compensation of Rs.22,500/-; iv) that all the occupants of the building reconstructed their portions and the respondent/defendant also re-constructed the portion in his occupation at his own cost; v) thereafter, the father of the appellant/plaintiff contacted the respondent/d