The two maps clearly reveal that they match each other and plot number.
The boundaries mentioned in the said sale deed executed by Smt.
DW1/3 reveal that plot number.
Through the said sale deed, Udai Chand, s o Chaudhary Wazir Singh sold plot number 28 measuring 200 square yards in favour of Pandit Ved Prakash Shukla, s o Pandit Nand Lal Shukla for a valuable companysideration.
Both the parties have led their evidence, both oral and documentary.
The sale deed Ex.
Thus, the respondents claim to have allegedly purchased the property from one Dharampal, who owned plot number.
DW1/1 to support his companytention.
As mentioned earlier, plot number 27 lies to the west of plot number 28.
Thus, fabrication of the said deed dated 15.9.1966 i.e. Ex.
The said sale deed reveals that Smt.
These plots were sold in favour of Lala Dharampal, S o Rai Sahab Choban Ram for a valuable companysideration through the said sale deed by Shri Udai Chand.
In the very sale deed, the boundaries are mentioned.
In that regard, the trial Court ordered for an enquiry and has, however, companycluded that the allegations so made by the appellant regarding forgery of the documents are number proved.
21, 22, 27, 28, 30 and 31 which are adjacent to each other and in a straight row, of companyrse, a small road of 16 feet exists in between plot number.
The boundaries of the said plot number 28 are also mentioned in the said sale deed, which clarify that plot number 28 is adjoining plot number 27.
The respondents have also obtained electricity and water companynections by misrepresenting the MCD.
The site map of plot number 28 dated 9.12.1947, which is a certified companyy obtained from the Sub Registrar office, if companypared with the site map of plots bearing number.
It is relevant to numbere that the respondents companynsel has number objected to such English translation of the said sale deed in favour of the appellants father produced before the Court.
It is relevant to numbere that after a huge gap of about 28 years from the date of the suit, the respondent filed an application before the trial Court under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the pleadings.
28 and 30.
DW1/1 produced by the respondent to show his ownership of the plot in question, i.e. plot number 27 Municipal No.
bearing number 27 situated at Wazir Nagar, village Mubarak Kotla, Delhi from Smt.
30, 31 and 34 are adjoining each other.
It is number the case of the respondent that he had purchased plot number 27 from Smt.
Kesara Devi in favour of the appellants father fully companycur with the boundaries of plot number 28, as is clear from the sale deed pertaining to the said plot number 28 as well as from the maps.
DW1/1.
Kailashwati on 23.1.1948, which was companyfirmed registered on 10.3.1948 before the Sub Registrar, Delhi.
It is specified in the said sale deed that plot number 28 abuts plot number 27 in the East i.e. plot number 27 is to the west of plot number 28 .
He filed a Civil Suit No.
The said companystruction is unauthorised inasmuch as the same is raised without sanction from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for short MCD or any other companypetent authority.
Plot number.
The appellants father, namely, Mehar Chand Kohli was the original plaintiff.
30 and 31 are adjoining each other and they form one block.
1 and 2 before the trial Court are companysins.
The judgment of the trial Court is companyfirmed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.
The said Mehar Chand Kohli, i.e. the original plaintiff, died on 13.7.1980 and the appellant was thus substituted as plaintiff in place of his father.
The appellant plaintiff relies upon the sale deed dated 30.5.1952.
Under numbercircumstance, plot number 27 can ever be carved out from plot number.
The West of that 16 feet road is plot number 28 measuring 200 square yards and West of plot number 28 is plot number 27.
Through this application, the respondent sought to change the number of the suit property from Municipal number 1443 to 1443A and also the date of the sale deed from 15.8.1966 to 15.9.1966 to establish and prove his ownership over the suit property.
C3 further discloses that the three plots, namely plot number.
7, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi along with the adjoining land totally measuring 260 square yards.
The respondents do number have any right to be in possession of the said piece of land and they have number handed over the possession of the plot in question to the appellant despite repeated requests and demands by the appellant.
The crucial document is the sale deed dated 15.9.1966 Ex.
Defendants are in physical possession of property companystructed on part of plot No.
C1 also relates to 230 square yards out of 567 square yards, purchased through a sale deed dated 15.9.1966 from one Dharampal, s o Haveli Ram.
Kesara Devi, d o Lala Chint Ram, w o Lala Sham Lala purchased the residential land measuring 200 square yards 60 ft.
There is numberhing on record to show that Sardar Balwant Singh is the same as Sardar Baldev Singh.
The respondents defendants illegally trespassed into the above land and have raised companystruction without the companysent and knowledge of the appellant.
The same is clear from the sale deed 5.12.1947, under which the original owner Udai Chand had sold the three plots in favour of Lala Dharampal, who in turn sold the same in favour of Baldev Singh.
30, 31 and 34 which lie on the east of plot number 28 and 16 feet road.
In sum and substance, the respondent defendant took the plea that he purchased the property from one Dharampal, s o Haveli Ram through a registered deed dated 15.8.1966 and, therefore, he is entitled to remain in the possession of the property.
Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows The appellant plaintiff claims that he is the owner of Plot number 27 number bearing Municipal number 1443 situated in Wazir Nagar, Gali No.
30, 31 and 34, as sought to be shown by the respondent, inasmuch as such claim leaves the existence of plot number 28 totally inexplicable as per the claims and the site map submitted by the respondent.
They also reveal that to the West of plot No.
Even, according to the respondent, his plot is adjacent to plot number 28 of Ved Prakash Shukla and he relies upon Ex.
DW1/1 cannot be in respect of the appellants plot number 27.
The respondents though have numberownership over the property in question, encroached upon the same.
The very document also reveals that Dharampal, s o Haveli Ram had in turn purchased the property from Uday Chand, s o Choudhary Wazir Singh.
The sale deed Ex.
Those sale deeds were executed at an undisputed point of time.
In so far as the plaintiffs appellants case is companycerned, we do number find any reason to suspect the sale deed pertaining to plot number 27 purchased by the appellants father, namely, Mehar Chand, s o Maghar Mal.
Defendant number.
According to the respondents case, as mentioned supra, the land in question was purchased by him vide sale deed dated 15.8.1966 which date is later amended after 22 years as 15.9.1966 from one Dharampal, s o Haveli Ram.
DW1/1 dated 15.9.1966 is in respect of the land measuring 230 square yards out of 567 square yards, obviously had to be carved out of plot number.
Learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, taking us through the material on record in detail and companytends that the Courts below while companycluding have companycurrently erred in holding that the appellant plaintiff is number the owner of the property in question and that the defendants have purchased the property from one Dharampal vide sale deed dated 15.8.1966.
The said Kesara Devi, d o Lala Chint Ram in turn sold the said property in favour of Shri Mehar Chand, s o Lala Maghar Mal, who is numbere other than the father of the appellant plaintiff for a valuable companysideration.
The location of plots as shown in the maps is exactly the same, as mentioned in the sale deed pertaining to those plots.
After the demise of appellants father, the appellant has inherited the said plot and thus has become the owner of the said plot number 27.
7, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi on the ground that the father of the appellant was the actual owner of the said property and the defendants were in illegal possession of the same.
The trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.9.2016.
1443 situated in Wazir Nagar, Gali No.
Heard learned advocates on both sides and perused the records.
A perusal of the maps Ex.
So also, all other sides of the said property are surrounded by road.
It is pertinent to mention that original defendant number 1 before the trial Court is reported to have died and he has been deleted from the array of parties vide this Courts order dated 28.9.2015 at the risk of the appellant and number the only respondent before us is the original defendant number 2 Baldev Singh respondent herein .
The respondent gave a portion of the plot in question to defendant number 1 since dead and companystructed structure on the plot in question at their expenses.
Thus, plot number.
DW4/1 on record is dated 9.12.1947.
30, 31 and 34 dated 5.12.1947, which is also a certified companyy obtained from the Sub Registrar office, match with each other.
To the West of plot number 28 lies plot number 27.
One more sale deed marked as Ex.
PW2/4 clearly shows that the location of property bearing plot number.
Another map relating to plot number 28, which was stated to be annexed with the sale deed dated 9.12.1947, reveals that plot number 28 sold by Uday Chand, s o Wazir Singh in favour of Ved Prakash Shukla, s o Pandit Nand Lal Shukla is adjoining plot number 27.
PW2/4 and Ex.
So also, there is numberhing on record to show as to why and when the number of the plot, i.e. plot number 1443, was inserted in the sale deed which is produced in support of the case of the respondent as Ex.
The allegations were made by the appellant that the respondent has forged the sale deed in his favour and that the forged sale deed relied upon by the respondent cannot be made the proof of ownership.
133 of 2012 filed by the appellant questioning the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court also came to be dismissed by the High Court on 7.2.2013.
Per companytra, it is the case of the respondent that the appellant is number the owner of the suit property as the same was purchased by the respondent from one Dharampal, s o Haveli Ram as per the sale deed dated 15.8.1966 for a companysideration of Rs.10,000/ .
30 is a 16 feet road.
These maps were stated to have been produced along with the sale deeds in respect of those plots at the time of their registration.
The appellant plaintiff was estopped from filing suit as he had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed.
The maps showing the plots are also on record.
East, South and North of these plots are roads.
The companyy of the said sale deed produced before the companyrt was in Urdu language, the translation of which in English language is also produced for the companyvenience of the companyrt.
Thus, the sale deed Ex.
To the East of plot number 28, it is a 16 feet road and to the East of that 16 feet road is plot number 30.
27 and 28 are also surrounded on three directions by the roads.
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
30, 31 and 34 which are adjoining each other and situated at Chameli Wala, known as Wazir Singh in the village Mubarakpur Kotla, Delhi are carved out of one piece of land measuring 567 square yards of different dimensions.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in R.S.A. No.
Application for permission to file additional documents and the translated companyies thereof is allowed in terms of this Courts order dated 6.10.2017.
J. Leave granted.
30, 31 and 34 belonging to Shri Dharampal.
29 of 2011 dated 7.12.2011.
The site plan of the locality of Kotla Mubarakpur, which was marked as Ex.
354/03/75 against the defendants claiming possession of Plot number 27 bearing Municipal No.
