Roop Singh Vs. Roshan Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1139024
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnApr-28-2014
JudgeVALMIKI J. MEHTA
AppellantRoop Singh
RespondentRoshan Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
8 * in the high court of delhi at new delhi + rsa no.93/2012 and cm102152012 (stay) 28th april, 2014 % roop singh through: ......appellant mr. arvind nayar, mr. bharat bhushan gupta, mr. sanad kumar jha, advocates. versus roshan lal & ors. through: ...... respondents mr. rajender kumar, advocate coram: hon’ble mr. justice valmiki j.mehta to be referred to the reporter or not?. valmiki j.mehta, j (oral) 1. this second appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 18.7.2011 and the first appellate court dated 3.5.2012; by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff claiming the reliefs of declaration, injunction etc. was dismissed. originally in the suit four reliefs were claimed, but the fourth relief claimed of partition was withdrawn as per order the dated 5.9.2006 as recorded by the trial court. the other three reliefs which will therefore remain are as under :“i) a decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the plaintiff is the co-sharer in the huf property and sole and absolute owner of the property no.58 pana vill. & po. mundka delhi and the plor measuring 68 x 24 ft. alongwith the passage/corridor at 8 ft. at khasra no.849/1/1, 849/2/1 village mundka delhi. (ii) further directing defendants to remove themselves from the portion of the corridor/gali 8 ft. of the property to enable the plaintiff for smooth passage entrance to his residence. (iii) grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any other persons restraining the defendants or any other persons acting through or on their behalf there servants, agents, representatives of any one acting under or through them in any manner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the residential house situated on plot no.58 pana samdyan village & po mundka delhi and plot measuring 68 x 24 ft. falls in lal dora alongwith the passage/corridor at 8 ft. at khasra no.849/1/1, 849/2/1 vilage mundka delhi and also restraining the defendants from creating any theird party interest in the agriculture land measuring 2 bighas and 2.5 biswas at khasra no.” 2. the disputes in the present case pertain to a residential house situated on a plot of 85 sq. yards situated in a plot measuring 900 sq. yards. appellant/plaintiff claims to be in possession of the plot of 85 sq. yards or an area of 68x24 ft. alongwith 8 feet corridor falling in the lal dora of the village which he had built upto the first floor bearing no.58, plot no.37, mundka, delhi and situated in k.no.849/1/1 and 849/2/1, village mundka, delhi.3. the essential and main reliance which was placed upon by the appellant/plaintiff to claim rights in the suit property was the family settlement entered into between the parties on 14.4.2002. this settlement is in hindi and in the judgment of the first appellate court english translation of the same is given as under:“this compromise has ben arrived between roop singh s/o roshan lal, surinder singh s/o sh. roshan lal, joginder singh s/o sh. roshan lal r/o mundka, the three brothers out of their own free will and it has been decided that all the three brothers are bound by this agreement and he himself shall be liable for the same. the compromises is as follows: (i) sh. roop singh has agreed to give a 6 iron garders of 9 ft. x3x 5” and 4000 bricks of best quality and 16 tukdi of 1 ½ x2
Judgment:

8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.93/2012 and CM102152012 (Stay) 28th April, 2014 % ROOP SINGH Through: ......Appellant Mr. Arvind Nayar, Mr. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, Mr. Sanad Kumar Jha, Advocates. VERSUS ROSHAN LAL & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This second appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 18.7.2011 and the first appellate court dated 3.5.2012; by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff claiming the reliefs of declaration, injunction etc. was dismissed. Originally in the suit four reliefs were claimed, but the fourth relief claimed of partition was withdrawn as per order the dated 5.9.2006 as recorded by the trial court. The other three reliefs which will therefore remain are as under :

“i) A decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the plaintiff is the co-sharer in the HUF property and sole and absolute owner of the property No.58 Pana Vill. & PO. Mundka Delhi and the plor measuring 68 x 24 ft. alongwith the passage/corridor at 8 ft. at khasra No.849/1/1, 849/2/1 Village Mundka Delhi. (ii) Further directing defendants to remove themselves from the portion of the corridor/gali 8 ft. of the property to enable the plaintiff for smooth passage entrance to his residence. (iii) Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any other persons restraining the defendants or any other persons acting through or on their behalf there servants, agents, representatives of any one acting under or through them in any manner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the residential house situated on plot No.58 Pana Samdyan village & PO Mundka Delhi and plot measuring 68 x 24 ft. falls in Lal Dora alongwith the passage/corridor at 8 ft. at khasra No.849/1/1, 849/2/1 Vilage Mundka Delhi and also restraining the defendants from creating any theird party interest in the agriculture land measuring 2 bighas and 2.5 biswas at khasra no.”

2. The disputes in the present case pertain to a residential house situated on a plot of 85 sq. yards situated in a plot measuring 900 sq. yards. Appellant/plaintiff claims to be in possession of the plot of 85 sq. yards or an area of 68x24 ft. alongwith 8 feet corridor falling in the Lal Dora of the village which he had built upto the first floor bearing No.58, Plot No.37, Mundka, Delhi and situated in K.No.849/1/1 and 849/2/1, village Mundka, Delhi.

3. The essential and main reliance which was placed upon by the appellant/plaintiff to claim rights in the suit property was the family settlement entered into between the parties on 14.4.2002. This settlement is in Hindi and in the judgment of the first appellate court English translation of the same is given as under:

“This compromise has ben arrived between Roop Singh S/o Roshan Lal, Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Roshan Lal, Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Roshan Lal R/o Mundka, the three brothers out of their own free Will and it has been decided that all the three brothers are bound by this Agreement and he himself shall be liable for the same. The compromises is as follows: (i) Sh. Roop Singh has agreed to give a 6 iron garders of 9 ft. X3x 5” and 4000 bricks of best quality and 16 tukdi of 1 ½ X2