AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nirmal Yadav, J.—Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the Respondents.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar vide which suit of the Appellants has been dismissed.
The facts, in brief, are that Appellants claim to be the owner of plots bearing No. 180/82/47M and 181/81/47M. According to the Appellants, a sale deed was executed in their favour by Virendra Panwar on 07.10.2008 and Virendra Panwar had purchased this property from Sarvdeshik Dayanand Sanyasi Vanprasth Mandal through Swami Yatishwaranand Saraswati. It is further pleaded that Appellants are in possession of suit property. They have placed on record, the order of Haridwar Development Authority sanctioning the site plan. They have also placed on record the receipts for depositing the development charges. He also placed on record receipt of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, Jwalapur, Haridwar to prove that a water meter, in the name of Appellant No. 2 Indramani Bhatt, has been installed at disputed site.
On the other hand, Respondents have placed on record a registered sale deed dated 28.03.1980 vide which property was sold by Sarvdeshik Dayanand Sanyasi Vanprasth Mandal through its Secretary, Yogendra Pursharthi in favour of Rajdulari, mother of Respondent No. 1.
The trial court, after taking into consideration the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that no case in favour of Appellants is made out and thus, dismissed the suit for permanent injunction.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the trial court has not taken into consideration the documents placed on record, such as, order of sanction of site plan, receipt of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan issued in favour of Appellant No. 2 and receipt of development charges.
A perusal of documents shows that Appellant No. 1 Dhirendra Kumar Singh applied for sanction of site plant of plot on 09.01.2009 and the site plan was sanctioned on 16.01.2009. Admittedly, the same has been done during the pendency of the suit. From the perusal of documents with regard to water connection (Annexure No. 5) shows that there is no mention as to whether these receipts are with regard to property in dispute or not. The receipt relates to property situated in Adarsh Nagar, Jawalapur and it does not specify that whether the water meter is installed at the property in dispute. Moreover, learned Counsel for the Respondents pointed that even in the description of property attached with the plaint, the Appellants have not shown whether any construction had been raised on the property in question. They have simply described the property as plot Nos. 180/82/47M and 181/81/47M. In case, any construction existed on the suit property it would have been mentioned by the Appellants.
Taking into consideration that Smt. Rajdulari is the registered owner since 28.03.1980 and there is nothing on record to show that the sale deed was ever cancelled or she, in any way, disposed of the property in favour of any person. The documents with regard to possession cannot be relied, as the same have been obtained during the pendency of suit.
I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.