Satyanand vs Jagdish Singh

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The impugned judgment is the judgment dated 23.8.1997 which had endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge dated 17.11.1994 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

plaintiff Satya Nand is a social worker engaged in helping the needy for getting yoga treatment. He had requested the Delhi Administration for allotment of land under the 20 Point Programme. In the year 1976 the Delhi Administration had allotted plots of land to poor people; plaintiff had been allotted plot No. 228A, Ambedkar Nagar, Haidarpur, New Delhi. An initial deposit of Rs. 45/- was made by the plaintiff; possession of the plot was handed over to him; plaintiff had constructed only a portion of the plot. It is pointed that the defendant being an official person had dispossessed the plaintiff and built a double storied house on the said plot; this was in a part of the portion of the said land; in 1991 defendant again dispossessed the plaintiff. plaintiff accordingly filed the present suit for possession and mesne profits.

Before the Trial Judge on 29.9.1993 four issues were framed and thereafter on 4.3.1994 an additional issues was framed. The said issues read as follows:

Whether the plaintiff is allottee of land in dispute? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of land in dispute? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit? OPP

Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee & jurisdiction? OPD

Additional issue

Whether the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the suit property in the year 1981 by the defendant and after that defendant constructed double story building on it.? OPP

plaintiff had examined two witnesses. Patwari had come into witness box as PW-1. plaintiff had examined himself as PW-2; he had proved his caste certificate showing himself as "Kabir Panthi" Ex.PW-2/1, the LR Receipt, had a cutting; No. 309 had been scored off, No. 228A had been written. This had been admitted by PW-1. PW-1 further admitted that a plot had been allotted to him in Mangolpuri which had been demolished and an alternate plot had been allotted to him in Mangolpuri. Trial Court had noted that the plaintiff had not been able to prove his allotment; no allotment letter had been proved; it had noted that the plaintiff had admitted that he had got a plot allotted to him in Mangolpuri; he could not, thus under the 20 Point Programme get another plot in Haidarpur. Trial Judge had also noted that a contrary stand has been set up by the plaintiff; whether he was dispossessed in 1982 or in 1991 was not clear even to himself. The suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed.

The impugned judgment vide judgment and decree dated 23.8.1987 endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge. plaintiff was held entitled to no relief.

This is a second appeal Court. The appeal had been admitted on 19.1.2000. Perusal of the record shows that even after the admission of the appeal no substantial question of law has been formulated till date. The substantial question of law has also not been formulated in the body of the appeal.

Arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties. This appeal has been filed by the appellant in person; it appears that after the filing of the appeal, the appellant has obtained a law degree; he has now addressed his arguments in person. It has been specifically put to the appellant about the substantial question of law which are sought to be raised by him. It is pointed out that the grounds of appeal are in fact the substantial questions of law raised by him. These grounds are four in number; they read as under:

(1A) That para No. 4 of the Judgment is in totally wrong. This is the contention of respondent who is nothing to the suit property besides Trespasser where as appellant is owner, allottee of the suit property, neither any construction was made nor gitwar was on the suit property. It was the land of Delhi Administration , proof of which is submitted Khatwani given by Tehsildar Delhi of Khasra No. 15, respondent has no proof of that suit property. The suit property is not even remotely related to respondent by his forefather, nor by himself.

(B) That the appellant was in possession of the suit property having ration card, Electoral certificate.

(C) The value of the suit property is not 5 Lakhs. It was allotted to appellant against Rs. 45/- (Forty five) only which is not for sale business letting out to tenants, but of self use of residence of allottee only.

(D) There is every cause of action to the present appeal. The suit is not barred under Order 11 Rule 2 &3 of the C.P.C. and Order XXIII C.P.C.

The counter arguments of the respondent are to the effect that these grounds are all fact based. It is pointed out that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to establish his title before he could obtain a decree of possession; he having failed to prove any documentary evidence; his oral version being contrary, the Courts below had rightly dismissed him claim.

This Court is sitting in a second appeal. Although the appeal had been admitted; the substantial question of law had not been framed. The arguments addressed before this Court clearly show that the contentions raised by the appellant are factual in nature. This Court is not a third fact finding court. There is no document on record which can substantiate the claim of the appellant that he was allotted plot No. 228A, Haidarpur, New Delhi; in fact he had admitted before the Trial Court that he had got an alternate plot allotted to him at Mangolpur. In this view of the matter, he could not have got allotted another plot to him at Haidarpur under the 20 Point Programme which was a programme allotting plots to persons without any land; this scheme would be contrary to the tenor and version of the plaintiff.

No substantial question of law has arisen in this appeal; this appeal has been admitted mechanically. There is no merit in it; it is dismissed.