RSA No.14/2011 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 08.02.2011 + RSA No. 14/2011 SH. SUKHEY (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ………..Appellant Through: Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate. Versus SHRI BHUPENDER SHUKLA ……….Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 19.8.2009 whereby the suit of the plaintiff i.e. Sukhey (deceased) filed through his legal heirs seeking possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing Municipal No.D-100, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi forming part of Village Shakarpur, Delhi comprising part of Khasra No.83 had been dismissed. 2. Plaintiff claimed himself to the owner of the aforenoted suit property. He had earlier filed a suit for ejectment of the aforenoted suit shop and recovery of rent against defendant no.1 which was suit No.195/98. Plaintiff has claimed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Defendant had denied RSA No.14/2011 Page 2 of 4 the said relationship; that suit had been dismissed on 11.8.1999. Thereafter this suit has been filed. 3. In the written statement, the defendant had disputed the ownership of the plaintiff. Preliminary objection of res judicata had also been taken. 4. On the pleadings of the parties seven issues were framed. Plaintiff had examined his attorney PW-1 Balak Ram; two documents had been brought on record to substantiate his ownership. Ex.PW-1/3 is the house tax receipt evidencing the payment of house tax of Rs.5000/- quo the suit property. This document had rightly been rejected by the Courts below as not conferring any ownership or title on the plaintiff qua the suit property. The second document brought on record was the L.R.form Ex.PW-1/4; this is a document which is in urdu. Admittedly english translation of this document had not been filed in both the Courts below. While disposing of issue no.5, the trial judge had noted that Ex.PW-1/4 on the basis of which the plaintiff has claimed ownership is a photocopy of the L.R. form No.4 which is in urdu and the english translation of the same has not been filed. No other document has been filed by the plaintiff to set up his claim. The Courts below had rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to show that he is the owner of the suit property and as such his suit was dismissed. These findings were re-examined in detail in the impugned judgment and were confirmed. Para 43 and 44 of the impugned judgment is relevant in this context; it read as follows: 43.Since the plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession and recovery of damages on the basis of his ownership and the defendant has denied the ownership of the plaintiff, so, it was RSA No.14/2011 Page 3 of 4 incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to prove his title, because the plaintiff Shri Sukhey has claimed to be the exclusive owner of the suit property and in order to prove his title the plaintiff has examined his attorney PW-1 Shri Balak Ram and in order to prove his title he has filed certified copy of LR form no.4, the same is Ex.PW-1/4, which is in Urdu language. 44. Since, the plaintiff has failed to summon any witness to prove document Ex.PW-1/4, the law is well settled that with the mere exhibition of the document, same is not proved, so the same document cannot be looked into. The plaintiff has also relied upon an other document i.e. Ex.PW-1/3 which is the house tax receipt, but, the law is well settled that the entries in the receipt of the House Tax is not proof of ownership. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the co-owner can file a suit. I have full inclination with such submissions of the ld. Counsel for the appellant.” 5. The plaintiff not being able to establish his ownership qua the suit property, the suit for possession was rightly dismissed. 6. It is also relevant to point out that the attorney of the plaintiff while deposing in his capacity as PW-1 in his cross-examination had stated that he is the exclusive owner of the suit property where in his cross-examination he claimed himself to be a co-owner. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 40(1990) DLT 82 Mahavir Prashad Vs. Sukhdev Mongia lays down the undisputed proposition that a co-owner can file a suit for possession against a trespasser without impleading the other co-owners. The ratio of this judgment in no manner comes to the aid of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was that he is the owner of the suit property; in the plaint he has not specifically claimed to be a co-owner or an exclusive owner. Even assuming that he is a co-owner and a co-owner can file a suit for possession yet the fact that when the defendant had specifically disputed the ownership of the plaintiff it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to RSA No.14/2011 Page 4 of 4 have prove the same; he had failed to do so. Ex.PW-1/3 and Ex.PW-1/4 were not sufficient for this purpose. 7. Substantial question of law have been formulated on page 16 of the appeal. They largely border on the documents Ex.PW-1/3 and Ex.PW-1/4. No substantial question of law has arisen. The appeal is dismissed in limine. INDERMEET KAUR, J. FEBRUARY, 08, 2011 nandan