* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 86/2009 & CM Nos.9357-60/2009 Date of decision:July 14, 2009 ( SANTOSH DEVI Appellant Through : Mr. Nasimuddin, Advocate Versus KAMLA KARKY & ORS. Respondents 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? I U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH. I. (Oral) 1. The husband of the appellant Shri Ashok Kumar had purchased property No.E-467, Kidwai Gall, Chhajju Pura, Babbarpur, Shahdara,Delhi measuring 70 sq. yards in 1985 from Shri Bansi Lai on execution of various documents and obtained possession thereof. Thereafter on 18.3.2000 husband of the Digitally Signed By:AMULYA 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. Signature Not Verified plaintiff took Rs. 80,000 from Shri Om Vir Singh and executed various documents i.e. GPA, affidavit, receipt, will and agreement to sell in his favour for the suit premises. Later, Shri Om Vir Singh executed GPA in favour of defendant no. 2 duly registered on 31.3.2000. However possession of the property continued to remain with the husband of the plaintiff. Further, the husband of the plaintiff on repaying the loan amount of Rs. 80,000 requested Shri Om Vir Singh to return the documents executed by him in his favour and so Shri Om Vir cancelled GPA dated 18.1.2001 which was executed by him in favour of Shri Dhirender (Respondent/defendant no. 2). He then executed documents of transfer in favour of the plaintiff/Appellant. 2. The Appellant sold 38 Sq.Yards of suit property to Smt. Raj Bala on 8.5.2002 by executing GPA and remaining portion of 32 sq. yards of the suit premises was with her. Allegedly, in absence of the Appellant, the Defendant/RespondentNo. 1 raised construction on the suit premises and started RSA 86/2009 „ _ . . Page 2 of6 •V residing therein. 3. Plaintiff filed a suit on 3.9.2003 against the defendants for permanent injunction, declaration of her title and possession of the suit property before the Civil Judge alleging that after cancellation of CPA by Shri Om Vir, defendant no. 2 executed some documents in favour of defendant no. 3 who, later on executed documents in favour of defendant no. 1. Since he had no right, title or interest in the suit property, the claimed title of defendant no. 1 and 3 in the suit premises is illegal. 4. Respondents in their written statement refuted the claim of the appellant. The trial court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on the record by the parties, was pleased to dismiss the suit of the appellant vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2006. Against the order of the trial court, appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the appellate court, vide its judgment and decree dated 22.10.2007. This has resulted into filing of the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. 86/2009 Page 3of6 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that She is the owner of the suit premises having repurchased it from Sh. Om Vir Singh who had cancelled the documents executed in favour of respondent No.2 through cancellation deed dated 18.1.2001 duly registered with the office of the sub registrar. Therefore, respondent No.2 had no right, title or interest in the property. 6. It is further argued that respondent No.2 had no right, title or interest in the property which he could sell to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 by forging and fabricating documents without having any right, title or interest in the suit premises transferred the property in favour of defendant No.l. It is submitted that respondents have trespassed unauthorisedly in the suit premises and are not the owners of the same. It. is pointed out that respondent No.3 was a witness to the documents executed by the appellant in favour of Smt. Raj Bala and therefore, knew that appellant was owner of the remaining 32 sq. yards. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that under RSA 86/2009 the circumstances substantial questions of law as formulated In the appeal need consideration. 7. Perusal of substantial questions of law as formulated In the appeal Indicate that they are all questions of fact on which there are concurrent findings of the trial court as well as of the appellate court. None of the questions suggested In the appeal raise any substantial question of law. The property was purchased by the husband of the appellant by way of power of attorney etc. This property was being transferred or re-transferred by way of documents I.e. power of attorney and agreement to sell etc. The appellate court was pleased to dismiss the appeal with the following observations: "8. I perused the entire record In order to find whether there was any Illegality or Infirmity In the Impuged judgment? On perusal of entire record I find that Ld. Civil Judge decided the case on the basis of - evidence before him. He had given cogent and convincing reason for dismissal of the suit and deciding It In favour of defendants. He has also quoted the relevant evidence In the Impugned judgement and particularly the admission of Shrl Ashok Kumar, husband of the plaintiff that he had ^6/2009 Page 5of6 sold the suit property to Shri Ombir Singh on 18.03.2000 and that he did not return any amount to Shri Ombir Singh at any time. He also admitted that suit property was assessed for the purpose of house tax in the name of defendant no.l and she had also obtained an electricity at the suit property. He went on to admit that he lost the documents of title which were in favour of Bansi Lai. In these circumstances and on the basis of evidence Ld. Civil Judge rightly held that plaintiff failed to prove her case for getting the relief of permanent injunction, declaration and possession." 8. Thus, it is clear that by virtue of this appeal, appellant seeks interference of this Court on the fact findings of the courts below which is not permissible. 9. Since no substantial question of law needs formulation in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE July 14, 2009 jk ^6/2009