jyjo r efied OTOZ/98 I OTOZ/L9S0N VS}I eq p01!4 eq ol ewe uo!punlu! ,cioepuew joj sns poqns eq 'uo!ssessod aql azijeln6ai oi pee.j uepuo4op/1uelJedde aqq ODUS 4nq !qIBa MON 'IeesseH ui S2.J buOq 1UOW101l o!ieUjaiie aql 40 UO!SSOSSOd o1u! oweD S44i1U!ed/SUepUOdS9J eq paqsowep OJOM uepJe Iaed U! seiJadoJd OSOM suosed aq4 04 uo!epowwoDDe eA1eUJe1e @Aeb 4uelladde/V(]C] eqj /D!Iod e o4 4uensind 'JOAOMOLI '(vcia) Auoqnv uewdoIoAaa S qea Aq peqsiowep S2M AUOIOJ SNI. iqaa MON 'qJe642!2N 'Jo[rJ eioie 'uopJe Ieed Ui peens se!JedoJd aq4 jo uoednDDo/uo!ssessod U' oje sjtiuieid/suepuodseJ leql ee sese eq o spe.j eq qaa MON 'I2eSSeH W peIenl!s SI4 pelqns eq o uo!ednDDo aql 6u!z!JeInbeJ J04 U0!PUflIU! Ajoepuew joj peonep ueeq seq s44u!eId/suepU0dSeJ oq 40 1!nS aq4 AqoJeqM 'Moeq snoj eq 40 sUo!SpOp uonuo OM4 eq o4 si sieoddv puo:)@S Jeinbe oseq 40 sueew Aq oñueeqD eq Mooq snoj oq o oep owes aql 40 suowpnf eJquap! WOJ4 OSJe Aat4q pue pOAIOAU! OJ2 SD4 IeD!UoP! se q:)nwseui 4uaw6pnf uowwo siq4 Aq o posodsp 6ueq we sieedde OM1 0s0q.L OIOI09Z2 pue OIOZ/99Z9s0 N ij pue OtOV98°N vsu OIOZ/SS9 pue otO/ESZ9SON pue otO?/L9ON ysH + suepuodsoJ @(44 J04 OI2DOAPV 'ewJeq )flG W0 JLAJ ueiiodde aql J0J. OD0APV 'I44!V1 )1d JLIJ :UOSOJd IIOLOEE % 9 pue ç Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified furtherfacts as statedin the plaintare thatwhen the demoiitionwas carried out, the piaintiffs were not in Delhi and the neighbours of the plaintiffs aiongwith the officials put the belongings of the piaintiffs in the suit properties/flatssituatedat Hastsaal. 3. The trial Court, while decidingthe case, rightly crystallizedthe followingfour pointsfor decision:- "D Thatshe was in actual possessionof the house. ii) Her housewas demolishedby the defendant. G ill) The defendanthad a policyto allotalternativeflatto the evicteeswhose houseswere demolishedin the area. iv) Defendant had actually allotted the flats similarlysituatedpersonswhose houses were also demolishedwi the plaintiff." 4. The trial Courthas relied upon the testimoniesof PW-1 to P\A/-3, and which witnessesprovedthe stand of the plaintiffs/respondentsthat the plaintiffs/respondentswere in possessionof the propertiesat Patel Garden and which were demolishedin the absenceof the plaintiffswho were out of station, it was further deposed by these witnesses that they aiongwith ^ officialsof the appellanttransferredthe goods of the plaintiffsto the present flats beingoccupiedby the plaintiffs/respondents.More importantly,the trial Court relied upon the survey conducted by the appellantitself, proved on record as Ex,PW4/A, wherein the plaintiffs/respondentswere found to be residingin the propertiesat Patel Gardenwhichwere demolished. RSA NOS.S7/2010&88/2010 ^ " 5- Accordingly, the Courts below have upheld the entitlement of the respondents/plaintiffsfor nnandatoryinjunctionfor regularizationof the suit properties in their names. 5. Learnedcounselfor the appellantarguedthat oral testimoniesof the witnessesPW-1 to PW-3 ought not to have been believed by the Courts below in the absence of any proof of ration card or of the plaintiffshaving resided at Patel Garden. It was argued that since no demolitionslips were issuedto the plaintiffs/respondentsthey were not entitledto regularizationof subject flats. ^"6. In my opinion, the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/DDAdo not raise any substantialquestionof law as requiredunder Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC) inasmuch as they deal with appreciation of evidence only. In a civil case, the Court weighs respectiveevidences,and then decides as per balance of probabilities,as done by the Courts below. In fact, the argumentsas raised are such which would not have been accepted even in a first appeal. In my opinion, the findings and conclusionsof the Courts below are strengthenedby the fact that if someone else other than the plaintiffs were in occupation of the propertiesat Patel Garden, New Delhi such persons would have applied to the DDA for allotment/regularizationand admittedlyno person has claimed alternativeflats on the basis of demolished properties which the RSA Hos.87/2010&88/2010 ^ /-~S, •V plaintiffs/respondents claimed belonged to them. This Court under Section 100 CPC is only entitled to interfere with two concurrent judgments of the Courts below if there are substantial questions of law. The decisions of the Court below are based on the documents of the appellant/DDA itself, viz. the survey report Ex.PW4/A. Also no one else as stated above, has claimed alternative allotment from the appellant on the basis of demolished properties of the respondents/plaintiffs at Patel Garden, New Delhi. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits whatsoever in these appeals, which are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 13, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne RSA Nos.87/2010 & 88/2010 page 4 of 4 -r