Chander Dutt Sharma v. Prem Chand & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

JULY 04, 2018 Bs..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 4th July, 2018 + RSA 383/2016 & CM No.25973/2018 (u/O V R-20 CPC) CHANDER DUTT SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwla, Adv. Versus PREM CHAND & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj and Ms. Sagrika Wadhwa, Advs. for R-2. 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 dated 22nd August, 2016 in RCA No.61779/2016 (Old RCA No.09/2016) of the Court of Additional District Judge-09, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi of dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 30th October, 2010 in Suit No.212/2003 (Unique ID No.02401C0399722003) of the Court of Rakesh Kumar-I, Civil Judge, North Delhi, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi of dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants for recovery of possession of property No.RZ-B-54 admeasuring 200 sq. yds, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi. 2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 20th December, 2016, when it was renotified for 17th January, 2017 and the Trial Court record was requisitioned. 3. Vide subsequent order dated 24th May, 2017, notice of the appeal was ordered to be issued. In response to the said notice, the counsel for the respondents No.2&3 has been appearing and the other respondents remain unserved. 4. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has filed CM No.25973/2018 for service by publication of the other respondents and also informs that the respondent No.4 Pyara Singh has died and application for substitution of his legal heirs has been filed, though has not been listed. 5. Finding, that the order dated 24th May, 2017 issues notice of the appeal, without giving any reason and without recording what substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal and without which it is not to be entertained and further having gone through the file and being prima facie of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises, rather than adjourning the appeal for service of the respondents and/or for substitution of legal heirs of the respondent No.4, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has been asked to address on the said aspect and to show as to what substantial question of law arises in this second appeal against concurrent judgments of the two Courts below of dismissal of the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of possession of immovable property. 6. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has been heard and the Trial Court record perused. 7. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit from this which appeal arises, pleading (i) "that the plaintiff purchased a House No.RZ-B-54, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi in the year 1992 from defendants No.5&6 Pyara Singh and his wife Amarjit Kaur", through one Roop Chand, father of the respondents No.1 to 3 Prem Chand, Krishan Lal and Vijendra Kumar and husband of defendant No.4 Bhagwati (the defendant No.4 Bhagwati has since died and the present respondents No.1 to 3 were substituted also as her heirs); (ii) that the said Roop Chand was a Special Police Officer of the area at the relevant time and doing the business of property dealer; (iii) that the documents of sale and purchase of the property by the respondents No.4&5 Pyara Singh and Amarjit Kaur in favour of the appellant/plaintiff were prepared by the said Roop Chand and the appellant/plaintiff had transacted also with the said Roop Chand only; (iv) that the respondents No.4&5 were the owners of 90 sq. yds and 110 sq. yds. respectively of the aforesaid house admeasuring total 200 sq. yds.; (v) that the respondent No.4 Pyara Singh also executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, all dated 3rd July, 1992 against consideration of Rs.80,000/-; (vi) that the respondent No.5 Amarjit Kaur also executed GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavi