[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar vs Narain Singh on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE -04,
(PRESIDED OVER BY: ANIL CHANDHEL)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-000172-2013
Civil DJ No. 608114//2016
Anil Kumar
S/o Late Shri Umrao
R/o G-132, Sultan Puri,
Sunny Bazar, Delhi-110086. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Narain Singh
S/o Late Shri Fateh Singh
R/o 51/8, Gali No.13, Nai Basti,
Anand Parbat,
New Delhi-110005.
2. Kalawati
W/o Late Sh. Chunni Lal
R/o 261/1, Street No.12,
Than Singh Nagar,
Anand Parbat, New Delhi.
3. Shakuntla Devi,
W/o Shri Mohan Singh
R/o House No. 44/326,
Sector-4, Paliwal Ka Bhatta,
Opp. Vikram Nagar, Kishorepura,
Loha Mandi Ward, Agra, UP. ...Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION,
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
DAMAGES.
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 1 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 26.03.2013
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 17.05.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09.06.2025
Appearances:
Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff : Mr. Utkarsh Bhatt
Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocates.
Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1 : Mr. T.R. Sharma, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit, against the
Defendants, for the prayers of declaration, partition and
permanent injunction with regard to the suit property No.
51/8, Gali No.13, Nai Basti, Ananad Parbat, New Delhi, ad-
measuring 50 square yards.
2. The facts stated in the Plaint:
The facts, as set out in the plaint are briefly summed up in
the paras hereinbelow:
i. Late Fateh Singh was the common ancestor of the
parties. The Plaintiff is son of pre-deceased son of
late Fateh Singh, namely late Umrao. The
Defendant No.1 is the other son of late Fateh SinghAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 2 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
and the Defendant No.2 and 3 are daughters of late
Fateh Singh.
ii. Late Fateh Singh was sole and absolute owner of
the built up property bearing No.51/8, Gali No.13,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi, constructed
on land ad-measuring 100 square yards. During his
lifetime, late Fateh Singh sold 50 square yards of
the afore-mentioned property and remained owner
of the 50 square yards of property bearing No.51/8,
Gali No.13, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi,
which is suit property.
iii. The Plaintiff’s father pre-deceased late Fateh Singh
in the year 1992, leaving behind the Plaintiff and
his wife (widow) Ms. Kamlesh. Ms. Kamlesh
solemnized a second marriage with Mr. Kishan Lal
and the Plaintiff (minor at that time) was also taken
by her and both of them started living with Mr.
Kishan Lal, who also started taking care of Plaintiff
as his own son. However, the Plaintiff continued to
meet his grandfather during his life time and then
after his death, the Plaintiff maintained his relations
with the Defendants.
iv. Late Fateh Singh died on 21.05.1995 leaving
behind him the Plaintiff and Defendants as his legalAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 3 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
heirs. The grandmother of the Plaintiff and mother
of the Defendants also died on 07.01.1995.
Thereafter, the Defendant No.1 started residing in
property No. 51/8, Gali No.13, Nai Basti, Anand
Parbat, New Delhi measuring 50 square yards,
which is now being comprised of ground floor and
first floor.
v. Only the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are entitled
to inherit the suit property in equal share of 50%
each as per law of succession. The Hindu
Succession Amendment Act is not applicable to the
facts of the present case and as such the Defendant
No.2 and 3, being the daughters of Late Fateh
Singh, were/are not entitled to inherit the suit
property.
vi. The Plaintiff visited the suit property in the first
week of January, 2012 and the Defendant No.1
asked him to contribute in the construction/repair to
be carried out on first floor and assured the Plaintiff
to give his 50% share in the suit property i.e.
ground floor and half roofs rights over the first
floor to be owned and possessed by the Plaintiff
and first floor with its half roof rights would be
owned and possessed by Defendant No.1. The
Plaintiff agreed to such proposal of the Defendant
No.1 and spent substantial amount in theAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 4 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
construction work carried out by the Defendant
No.1 on the first floor of the suit property.
However, Defendant No.1 after completion of
necessary construction/repair work on the first floor
in the end of July, 2012 continued to postpone the
matter on one pretext or other, despite various
requests and visits made by the Plaintiff for
partition of the suit property.
vii. In the end of February, 2013 the Plaintiff met his
aunt, i.e., the Defendant No.2 at her residence, who
told the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.2 and 3
have been given Rs.4,50,000/- each by the
Defendant No.1 in a civil suit filed by the
Defendant No. 3 in the year 2003, which was never
disclosed to the Plaintiff by either of the
Defendants. The Plaintiff asked about the details of
such civil suit from the Defendant No.2, who
provided the details of civil suit, i.e., case titled as
‘Kalawati Vs. Narain Singh & Ors.’, CS No. 348
and decided on 05.11.2012 by the Court of Ld.
ASJC(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
viii. On 23.03.2013, the Plaintiff engaged his Counsel
and requested him to inspect the Court file of the
above noted suit. The Plaintiff subsequently came
to know about the fraud played by the Defendants
No. 1 to 3 upon the Plaintiff by filing a collusiveAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 5 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
suit. However, the Hon’ble Court protected the
right of the Plaintiff observing in the order that the
compromise amongst the Defendants was not
binding upon the Plaintiff.
ix. On 24.03.2013, the Plaintiff thereafter contacted the
Defendant No.1 and requested him to partition the
suit property in 50% each share between the
Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, however the
Defendant No.1 refused to partition the suit
property and further threatened to sell and transfer
the same to third parties.
On the basis of the above-mentioned averments the
Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration for
declaring him as owner of the suit property in ½ share and
has sought the prayer of partition of suit property. The
Plaintiff has also sought the prayers of permanent
injunction and damages for Rs.5,000/- per month.
3. Service of the Defendants and the Written Statements:
3.1. The Defendants were duly served with the summons of the
present suit. The Defendant No.1 and 3 entered appearance
on 03.07.2013, however the Defendant No.2 did not enter
appearance, despite being served in the matter and remain
absent in the proceedings. The Defendant No.3 has
appeared only on 03.07.2013 and thereafter, remainedAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 6 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
absent in the proceedings. No written statement was filed
on behalf of the Defendant No.2 and 3. The Defendant No.1
filed his written statement and refuted the contentions of
the plaint. The relevant averments, made by the Defendants
No. 1 in his written statement and constituting his defence,
are being summed up in brief in the paras hereinbelow:
i. The Plaintiff does not have any no locus-standi to
file the present suit. The Plaintiff is son of Kishan
Lal and not of late Umrao. The Plaintiff has not
filed any document to show the name of his father
as Umrao.
ii. The Plaintiff’s mother had remarried with late
Kishan Lal and the Plaintiff was
fostered/maintained by him. Late Kishan Lal was
presumed father/step father of the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff became entitled to inherit the property of
late Kishan Lal, who is his father/step father as well
as presumed father and the Plaintiff was left with no
rights to inherit from his natural father.
iii. The Plaintiff has inherited the property left behind
by late Kishan Lal. The house in which the Plaintiff
is residing i.e. property bearing no. G-132, Sultan
Puri Delhi, is also inherited by him from late Kishan
Lal, as being his son.
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 7 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
iv. Late Umrao was habitual drunkard and was not
physically well, so Ms. Kamlesh had developed
illicit relations with late Kishal Lal and after death
of Umrao, she eloped with late Kishan Lal along
with Plaintiff and thereafter remarried with him and
thereafter no relations remained between the
Plaintiff/his mother with the Defendants. There was
no relation of the Plaintiff with the Defendant No.1
and they were not on visiting terms.
v. The Defendant No.2 and 3 are not entitled to any
share in the suit property and their shares were
settled in the life time of late Fateh Singh by family
settlement and the share to Defendant No.2 and 3
had been given from the sale consideration of 50
square yards. Thus, the Defendants No.2 and 3
were not left with any right in the suit property. The
reconstruction and renovation in the suit property
was carried out by the Defendant No.1 in 1998,
which was completed in 2003.
vi. The Plaintiff has not correctly valued the prayer of
partition, declaration and damages and has not made
payment of requisite Court fees, in terms of
provision of the Court Fees Act.
vii. The present suit is barred by limitation.
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 8 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
4. The Court did not direct the Plaintiff to file any replication to
the written statement of the Defendant No.1 nor any
permission was sought by the Plaintiff to file the replication.
Thus, no replication is filed by the Plaintiff to the written
statement of the Defendant No.1.
5. Issues:
5.1 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed on 30.09.2015: –
i. Whether the Plaintiff had already taken his share
as per family settlement during the life time of Sh.
Fateh Singh? OPD.
ii. Whether the suit is barred under Section 23 of the
Hindu Succession Act? OPD.
iii. Whether the Plaintiff has not properly valued the
suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?
OPD.
iv. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for preliminary
decree of the partition of the suit property as
prayed for? OPP.
v. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for final decree of
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 9 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
partition of the suit property as prayed for? OPP.
vi. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree of
declaration as prayed regarding the suit property?
OPP.
vii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction regarding the suit premises? OPP.
viii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for damages as
prayed for? OPP.
ix. Relief.
6. The Plaintiff’s Evidence:
6.1. The Plaintiff has led his evidence and has examined six
witnesses in support of his case. The Plaintiff has himself
appeared himself as PW-1. The Plaintiff has reiterated the
contentions of the plaint in his examination-in-chief. He has
exhibited and relied upon the following documents in his
examination-in-chief:
i. Mark-A: Copy of the house tax;
ii. Mark-B: Copy of the water bill;
iii. Mark-C: Copy of death certificate of Sh. Fateh
Singh;
iv. Exhibit PW-1/1: Site Plan;
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 10 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
v. Mark-D: Copy of Statement dated 05.11.2012 in
Suit No. 348/08.
The PW-1 was cross-examined in part by Ld. Counsel for the
Defendant No. 1 on 17.02.2016 and his remaining cross-
examination was deferred and matter was posted for further
cross-examination on 25.04.2016 and the Defendant No.1
sought an adjournment on the aforesaid date, on the ground
of the Counsel not being well. The matter was adjourned to
18.07.2016. On 18.07.2016, the PW-1 was not present,
however the PW-2 was examined on behalf of the Plaintiff
and matter was adjourned for cross-examination of the PW-
1. On the subsequent two dates of hearing, i.e., on
20.09.2016 and on 06.12.2016, the other witnesses were
examined on behalf of the Plaintiff and PW-1 did- not appear
for cross-examination. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on
21.02.2017, the Plaintiff’s evidence was closed. The
Plaintiff’s evidence was closed in terms of his statement
recorded separately on 21.02.2017, however none of the
parties pointed out at that time that the cross-examination of
PW-1 was not concluded.
6.2. The Plaintiff has examined the official witness, from Delhi
Jal Board, as PW-2 and the PW-2 has produced the Water
Tax Bill, exhibited as Exhibit PW-2/1, in his examination-
in-chief. The PW-2 was not cross-examined by the
Defendant No.1, despite opportunity being given and was
accordingly discharged.
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 11 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
6.3. The Plaintiff has examined the official witness, from the
House Tax Department, Karol Bagh, as PW-3, who stated
that the summoned record did not pertain to his department.
6.4. The Plaintiff has examined the official witness from Record
Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi as PW-4 and the PW-4
has produced the record of Suit No. 348/08, which is Exhibit
PW-4/1(Colly). The PW-4 was cross-examined by the
Defendant No.1 and was accordingly discharged.
6.5. The Plaintiff has examined the official witness, from the
Office of Sub-Registrar, Births and Deaths, as PW-5. The
PW-5 has produced the death certificate of late Fateh Singh
dated 21.05.1995 and the same is exhibited as Exhibit PW-
5/1 in the examination-in-chief of PW-5. The PW-5 was
cross-examined by the Defendant No.1 and was accordingly
discharged.
6.6. The Plaintiff has examined the official witness, from the
House Tax Department, Karol Bagh, as PW-6, who stated
that the summoned record was not available in the
department.
7. The Defendant’s Evidence:
7.1. The Defendant No.1 has led his evidence and has examined
two witnesses in support of his case. The Defendant No.1Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 12 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
has appeared as DW-1 and has reiterated the contentions of
the written statement in his examination-in-chief. The DW-1
has exhibited and relied upon the following documents in his
examination-in-chief:
i. Exhibit DW-1/1: Notice under Order XII Rule 6
(already Exhibit PW-1/D-1);
ii. Exhibit DW-1/2 (OSR): The postal receipt;
iii. Exhibit DW-1/3(OSR): The postal receipt;
iv. Exhibit DW-1/4(OSR): House- Tax receipt.
v. Exhibit DW-1/5(OSR): House- Tax receipt.
vi. Exhibit DW-1/6(OSR): House- Tax receipt.
The DW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
Plaintiff and was discharged upon conclusion of his cross
examination.
7.2. The Plaintiff has examined Mr. Hari Parshad as DW-2, who
is nephew of late Fateh Singh. The DW-2 did not reply upon
any document in his examination-in-chief. The DW-2 was
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff and was
discharged upon conclusion of his cross examination.
8. Submissions of the parties:
8.1. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the
Defendant No.1 has admitted that suit property was owned
by Late Fateh Singh and the Plaintiff’s father had a share in
the same, being the son of late Fateh Singh, which eventually
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 13 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
was inherited by the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the plea of
the Plaintiff being raised by the step father did not amount to
plea of adoption and therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to a
share in the suit property. It is stated that the testimony of the
Plaintiff can be relied upon and even in the absence of the
same, the Plaintiff would still be entitled to a share in the suit
property.
8.2. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1 has submitted that the
Plaintiff’s ties with his biological family were severed as his
mother had left the family alongwith Plaintiff, even before
the death of late Fateh Singh. It is submitted the Plaintiff was
brought up by his step father and inherited the estate of his
step father and the law does not provide for dual succession
in such a scenario. It is submitted that the suit was barred by
limitation as the Plaintiff has not enforced his right in the suit
property during the period of last 18 years. It is submitted
that the Plaintiff has himself did not get his cross-
examination concluded, in order to avoid difficult questions
and further with the objective of wriggling out of his
admissions in the cross-examination and therefore, aforesaid
incomplete cross-examination cannot be read against the
Defendant No.1, however the admissions therein should be
read against the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the suit is
apparently barred by limitation and the Plaintiff has neither
proved the contentions of the plaint nor explained the
limitation.
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 14 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
9. Conclusions on Issues and reasons for such conclusions:
9.1 Issue No.1: Whether the Plaintiff had already taken
his share as per family settlement
during the life time of Sh. Fateh
Singh ? OPD.
9.1.1. The Issue No.1 has been wrongly framed in the present suit.
The Defendant No.1 has challenged the capacity of the
Plaintiff to claim partition or right in the suit property,
however it is not the affirmative case of the Defendant No.1
that the Plaintiff had already taken the share in terms of the
family settlement during the life-time of late Fateh Singh.
The aforesaid contention has been made by the Defendant
No.1 in reference to the Defendant No.2 and 3 and not in
reference to the Plaintiff. It is stated in para 6 of reply of
merits of the written statement that the Defendant No.2 and 3
had already taken their share, during the lifetime of late
Fateh Singh, however the aforesaid contentions of family
settlement are not made in reference to the Plaintiff and
therefore, the Issue No.1 does not arise from the pleadings of
the parties. The Issue No.1 is accordingly deleted under
Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
9.2. Issue No.2: Whether the suit is barred under
Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act?
OPD.
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 15 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
9.2.1. The Issue No.2 does not arise from the pleadings of the
parties. There is no contention in the written statement of the
Defendant No.1 about the present suit being barred under
Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Further
Section 23 casted a disability upon the female members to
seek partition of the property, if the same was used as a
dwelling house by the male member(s), till the time the male
member(s) did not decide to partition the same. However, in
the present case, the partition is claimed by a male member
of the family and further no contentions of suit being barred
under Section 23 of the Act are stated in the written
statement. Moreover, Section 23 of the Act of 1956 has
already been omitted from the Act by virtue of the
Amendment Act of 2005. Therefore, the Issue No.2 is also
being deleted in view of Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
9.3. Issue No.3: Whether the Plaintiff has not properly
valued the suit for the purpose of court
fees and jurisdiction? OPD.
9.3.1. The onus to prove the Issue No.3 is upon the Defendant
No.1. The Defendant No.1 has stated in the para 3, 4 and 5 of
the preliminary objections that the Plaintiff has not valued
the present suit correctly for the prayers of partition,
declaration and damages and has not made payment of
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 16 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
requisite Court fees.
9.3.2. The Plaintiff has valued the prayer of partition for
Rs.10,00,000/-, the prayer for declaration for Rs.200/- and
damages have been claimed from the date of institution of
the suit and the Court fees is being undertaken to be paid,
after the decree for the same would be passed. The Plaintiff
has made payment of Court fee of Rs.15,000/- in total.
9.3.3. The market value of the suit property is stated to be
Rs.10,00,000/- and the Plaintiff has claimed 50% share in the
same and therefore, value of the Plaintiff’s share comes to
Rs.5,00,000/-. On the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Plaintiff
is liable to make payment of Court fees of Rs.7,224/-,
towards the prayer of partition. Though the Plaintiff is at
liberty to value the prayer of declaration, in terms of Section
8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and Section 7(iv) of the
Court Fees Act, 1870, however even the aforesaid valuation
for declaration of 50% ownership in the suit property is not
required to exceed the market value, i.e., Rs.5,00,000/-, upon
which the Plaintiff would only be liable to pay Court fees for
Rs.7,224/-. Even if the aforesaid two amount are added, the
Court fees paid by the Plaintiff is in excess of the same. The
damages are claimed from the date of institution of the suit
and thus no amount is claimed prior to institution and for
such uncertain future damages, the Plaintiff was not entitled
to pay any Court fees at the time of institution of the suit.
The Plaintiff can pay the requisite Court fees on the
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 17 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
damages, once the same are ascertained, at the time of
passing of decree, if any.
9.3.4. The Defendant No.1 had merely evasively denied the market
value stated by the Plaintiff, however no alternative market
value has been mentioned nor any evidence is led to prove
the market value, set out in plaint, to be incorrect. Therefore,
the Plaintiff has correctly valued the suit for its prayers and
the Defendant No.1 has failed to prove that the suit was not
so correctly valued. The Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in
favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.1.
9.4.1 Issue No.4: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for
preliminary decree of the partition of
the suit property as prayed? OPP.
9.4.1. The onus to prove the Issue No.4 is upon the Plaintiff. It is
admitted case of the parties that late Fateh Singh was owner
of the suit property. However, besides admissions of the
parties, no evidence has been led on record as to how late
Fateh Singh was the owner of the suit property.
9.4.2. Late Fateh Singh had two sons and two daughters. The
Plaintiff is son of pre-deceased son of late Fateh Singh,
namely late Umrao. The Defendant No.1 is other son of late
Fateh Singh, whereas the Defendant No.2 and 3 are
daughters of late Fateh Singh. It is case of the Plaintiff that
his father namely late Umrao died in 1992 and after his
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 18 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
death, his mother remarried to Mr. Kishan Lal and he was
maintained/brought by late Kishan Lal, however the Plaintiff
maintained his relations with late Fateh Singh and the
Defendants. The Defendant No.1 has stated in the written
statement that the Plaintiff’s mother eloped with late Kishan
Lal and the Plaintiff was fostered/brought up late Kishan Lal,
who was his presumed father/step-father. It is stated that the
Plaintiff did not have any relation with the Defendants and
the Plaintiff had inherited the properties of late Kishan Lal
and therefore, is not entitled to inherit the suit property.
9.4.3. The Plaintiff has stated that though he was brought by his
step father, however he maintained his relations with late
Fateh Singh and Defendants. Though the Plaintiff’s mother
may have re-married with late Kishan Lal, however that by
itself would not take away the rights of the Plaintiff in the
suit property, if any. It is not the affirmative case of the
Defendant No.1 that the Plaintiff was adopted. Merely the
Plaintiff was brought up by his step father, after the death of
his father and he inherited the properties of his step father,
the same would not be a disqualification to inherit the
property left behind by the his original/biological father. The
contentions, set out in the written statement, fall short of the
plea of adoption, which was the only legal way of
segregation of ties, created by the birth of a person.
9.4.4. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1 has submitted that the
Plaintiff has himself did not appear to get his cross-
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 19 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
examination concluded and therefore, his testimony can-not
be read against the Defendant No.1, however should be read
against the interests of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the
suit was otherwise barred by limitation, as the denial of
rights of the Plaintiff/his mother has been made out and the
present suit has been filed after a period of more than 18
years. It is submitted that the Defendant No.1 could have
cross-examined the Plaintiff on the issue of adoption as well
as of limitation, however since the Plaintiff intentionally did
not present himself to get the cross-examination concluded,
therefore, the Defendant No.1 was deprived of an
opportunity to extract the relevant information or ask
necessary questions from the Plaintiff, in oder to disprove
the claim of the Plaintiff. It is also submitted that the
Defendant No.1 had also issued a notice under Order XII
Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Plaintiff
has not produced the documents sought therein and
therefore, there should be an adverse inference against the
Plaintiff. In terms of aforementioned contentions of the
parties, the following two questions are required to be
decided, in order to ascertain the entitlement of the Plaintiff
for prayer of partition:
i. Whether the Plaintiff’s testimony in the present case
is to be discarded completely?
ii. Whether the suit for partition is barred by limitation?
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 20 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
The abovementioned questions are being discussed in detail
and answered in the paras mentioned hereinafter.
9.4.5. Whether the testimony of the PW-1 is to be completely
ignored?
i. The PW-1 was cross-examined in part by Ld. Counsel for the
Defendant No. 1 on 17.02.2016 and his remaining cross-
examination was deferred. The matter was posted for
25.04.2016, when the Defendant No.1 sought an adjournment,
on the ground of the Counsel not being well. The matter was
again adjourned to 18.07.2016. On 18.07.2016, the PW-1 was
not present, however the PW-2 was examined on behalf of the
Plaintiff and matter was adjourned for cross-examination of
the PW-1. On the subsequent two dates of hearing, i.e., on
20.09.2016 and on 06.12.2016, the other witnesses were
examined on behalf of the Plaintiff and PW-1 did- not appear
for cross-examination. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on
21.02.2017, the Plaintiff’s evidence was closed. The
Plaintiff’s evidence was closed in terms of his own statement
recorded separately on 21.02.2017, however none of the
parties pointed out at that time that the cross-examination of
PW-1 was not concluded.
ii. Though at the time of closing of the Plaintiff’s evidence, none
of the parties informed the aforesaid aspect of incomplete
cross-examination of the PW-1 to the Court, however it is the
prime responsibility of the party, who is leading evidence to
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 21 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
see that the witness offers himself for the cross-examination.
In the present case, the Plaintiff kept on appearing
subsequently in the matter and no reason has been assigned
for the Plaintiff not appearing for the remaining cross-
examination. Even during the stage of final arguments, the
aforesaid aspect was pointed out to Ld. Counsel for the
Plaintiff, however no remedial steps were taken in the matter.
iii. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao:
AIR 1999 SC 1441″, has held that when a party does not
offer himself for cross-examination, it would lead to a
presumption that the case set up by it is not correct. The
relevant observations of the Hon’ble Court are being
reproduced hereinbelow:
“16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the
witness box and states his own case on oath and
does not offer himself to be cross examined by
the other side, a presumption would arise that the
case set up by him is not correct as has been held
in a series of decisions passed by various High
Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the
decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial
Singh and Anr. . This was followed by the Lahore
High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and
Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High
Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v.
Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931)
Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh
Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy
Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh’s
case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun
Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if aAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 22 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
party abstains from entering the witness box, it
would give rise to an inference adverse against
him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v.
Bhishan Chand and Ors., drew a presumption
under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a
party who did not enter into the witness box.”
iv. It has been held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in, “Krishan
Dayal Vs. Chandu Ram MANU/DE/0078/1969: ILR 1969
Delhi 1090″, that where the cross-examination has not
completed on account of death of a witness, such evidence
can still be read by Court by applying a rule of caution while
appreciating its evidentiary value. However, the present case
is not one of death or incapacity of the witness. No incapacity
of the witness to appear for cross-examination has been made
out and thus, the witness has intentionally not presented
himself for the cross-examination.
v. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has held in “G. Balaji Vs.
Saravanasamy (20.07.2020): CMP No. 2182 of 2019″, that
the witness remaining absent in cross-examination results in
denial of opportunity to the opponent to disprove the claim
and such incomplete examination is not required to be
retained on record. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble
Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
“12.The above conduct of the Plaintiff, after having
filed the proof affidavit and marked the
documents, remaining absent for cross
examination will amount to denial of opportunityAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 23 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
to the opponent to disprove the claim and render
the evidence as complete one. As held by this
Court in Rajendran’s case as well as Metilda’s
(supra) incomplete evidence of a witness who has
failed to subject himself for cross examination
shall not be retained on record. Even though
there is no provision to eschew the evidence, the
evidence of the Plaintiff in the above case, not
tested by cross examination on account of his non
appearance, does not even have the probative
value, for, the incompleteness is attributable to
the Plaintiff himself. The further contention of the
respondent that the evidence can be used at the
later stage of the proceeding as per Section 33 of
Evidence Act is also not sustainable for the
reason the evidence herein is not the complete
evidence in the eyes of law. As contended by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, if a
witness is allowed to avoid the witness box for
cross examination after letting in evidence in
chief examination his evidence cannot be
retained on record and does not merit
consideration. If such an evidence of a
defaulting, delaying, clever or crooked and
cunning witnesses is taken for consideration, it
will run against the spirit of adversarial system
of law…….
13. Further it is submitted by the counsel appearing
for both sides that after closing the evidence of
PW1, Plaintiff’s side evidence has been continued
and as of now PW 3 examination itself is over.
Had the Plaintiff was keen to complete his
evidence, he would have offered himself for cross
examination by re-opening and recalling his
evidence. The conduct of his clearly shows that
he was and is not very keen in doing so. In such
an event the incomplete evidence of the Plaintiff
shall not remain on record and it shall be
eschewed…”
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 24 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
vi. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1 has submitted that the
testimony of the Plaintiff be permitted to be read against the
Plaintiff, however the same cannot be read against the
Defendant No.1. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has submitted that
the testimony of the PW-1 can be read against the Defendant
No.1 and he has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in “Subishi Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Osram India Pvt. Ltd.: 2017/DHC/5746.” However the
aforesaid judgment does not lay down the principal that the
evidence of a witness, not completely cross-examined by the
opposite party, in the case of witness being given up by the
party itself, becomes binding or be read against the opposite
party. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Court are
being reproduced hereinbelow:
“19. I may notice that most of the aforesaid judgments
are in the facts of the witness becoming
unavailable for cross-examination by reason of
death. The present case is essentially different in
this respect. Here, PW-1 has not become
unavailable for any such reason but owing to the
respondent/plaintiff having chosen to give him up.
Another difference in the present case is that here
it is the petitioner/defendant who wants to rely on
the uncompleted cross-examination of PW-1.
However, in my view, the principle would remain
the same. The only additional factor which the Suit
Court, while determining the probative value of
the evidence of PW-1 will have to consider is,
whether any adverse inference is to be drawn
against the respondent/plaintiff for having so
given up PW-1. While doing so, the possibility of
PW-1, in his further cross-examination by the
counsel for the petitioner/defendant, clarifying theAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 25 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
part of the cross-examination which the
petitioner/defendant wants to rely upon, and of the
respondent/plaintiff re-examining PW-1 will also
have to be considered.”
Thus, the Court held that the probative value of such an
evidence would remain open for an adverse inference against
the party and while doing so, the possibility of the witness, in
his further cross-examination, clarifying the part of the cross-
examination, which the opposite party wants to rely upon, and
of him being re-examined will also have to be considered. The
aforesaid observations may not support the contentions of Ld.
Counsel for the Plaintiff, however aptly guides the manner in
which such an evidence is to be considered.
vii. The Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that he had maintained
relations with the Defendants and entered into a family
settlement with the Defendant No.1 for construction of the
suit property in the year 2012. It is stated that he has incurred
expenses on aforesaid construction and in terms of settlement,
is entitled to ground floor of the suit property alongwith 50%
share in the roof rights. However, in the cross-examination,
the Plaintiff has stated that he had not visited the suit property
since 1995, i.e., from the date of death of late Fateh Singh and
further was not aware of the material particulars about the suit
property. He further states that he had considered late Kishan
Lal as his father and the name of late Kishan Lal was
mentioned as father in all of the documents of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has substantively contradicted the contentions of
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 26 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
the plaint in his incomplete cross-examination and it therefore
become easier not to come forward and answer any further
questions, by opting to remain absent in the
cross-examination. This Court has gone through the testimony
of PW-1 and most of the admissions made by the Plaintiff in
the cross-examination are such, which do not permit any
explanation by way of re-examination and amounts to pure
factual contradictions. If the aforesaid evidence is taken
completely off the record, it becomes easier for the Plaintiff to
avoid aforementioned contradictions, which are against his
interest and such a dishonest exercise would indeed cause
travesty of justice. This Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s
testimony would not be read against the Defendant No.1,
however his admissions in the cross-examination would be
read against his interest.
9.4.6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
i. The Defendant No.1 has raised the contentions of limitation
in the written statement, however no issue on the same has
been framed. In terms of Section 3 of the Limitation Act,
1963, the Court has to adjudge the factum of limitation even
in the absence of any such defence pleaded by the
Defendant. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is being
reproduced hereinbelow:
“3. Bar of limitation:
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 27 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal
preferred, and application made after the
prescribed period shall be dismissed, although
limitation has not been set up as a defence.”
Thus Section 3(1) of the Act imposes an obligation upon
the Court to dismiss a suit filed beyond limitation, even if
the Defendant does not plead the defence of limitation. The
aforesaid position of law has affirmed by the Supreme
Court of India in many judgments, as recently as in “S.
Shivraj Reddy (Died) thr his L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. S.
Raghuraj Reddy and Ors.: AIR2024SC2897”:
15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find
that the reasoning given by the learned Division
Bench while dismissing LPA No. 47 of 2002, that
the learned Single Judge ought not to have
considered the question of limitation as the
Defendants did not choose to raise the plea of
limitation in the trial Court is ex- facie erroneous.
Law in this regard has been settled by this Court
through a catena of decisions. We may refer to the
judgment in the case of V.M. Salgaocar and Bros.
v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and Anr
MANU/SC/0241/2005 : 2005:INSC:172 : (2005) 4
SCC 613, wherein this Court held as follows:
20. The mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation
Act is that it is the duty of the court to
dismiss any suit instituted after the
prescribed period of limitation irrespective
of the fact that limitation has not been set
up as a defence. If a suit is ex facie barred
by the law of limitation, a court has no
choice but to dismiss the same even if the
Defendant intentionally has not raised theAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 28 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
plea of limitation.
21. This Court in Manindra Land & Building
Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee
[ MANU/SC/0259/1963 : 1963:INSC:126 :
(1964) 3 SCR 495: AIR 1964 SC 1336]
held (AIR para 9): Section 3 of the
Limitation Act enjoins a court to dismiss
any suit instituted, appeal preferred and
application made, after the period of
limitation prescribed therefor by Schedule
I irrespective of the fact whether the
opponent had set up the plea of limitation
or not. It is the duty of the court not to
proceed with the application if it is made
beyond the period of limitation prescribed .
The Court had no choice and if in
construing the necessary provision of the
Limitation Act or in determining which
provision of the Limitation Act applies, the
subordinate court comes to an erroneous
decision, it is open to the court in revision
to interfere with that conclusion as that
conclusion led the court to assume or not
to assume the jurisdiction to proceed with
the determination of that matter. (emphasis
supplied)
16. Thus, it is a settled law that even if the plea of
limitation is not set up as a defence, the Court has
to dismiss the suit if it is barred by limitation.”
Therefore, the Court is duty bound to consider the question
of limitation, even in the absence of any objection of the
Defendant.
ii. The Plaintiff must establish the factum of limitation in the
affirmative before the same can be repelled by the
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 29 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
Defendants in the negative. The present suit is one for
partition and the right to seek partition is a continuing cause
of action. The limitation for a suit for partition arises in
terms of Article 110 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, only
when the person is excluded from the joint family property.
Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is being reproduced
hereinbelow:
Description of Period of Time from which period begins
suit limitation to run
By a person Twelve When the exclusion becomes
excluded from a years. known to the plaintiff.
joint family
property to
enforce a right to
share therein.
In order to create a bar of limitation, it has to be shown that
that the suit has been filed after the period of 12 years from
the date of exclusion of the Plaintiff or denial of the right of
the Plaintiff.
iii. The Plaintiff’s father has died in 1992 and late Fateh Singh
died in 1995, whereas the present suit for partition has been
filed in the year 2013. It is the case of the Plaintiff that his
mother remarried after death of his father and he was
thereafter brought up by his step-father. It is stated in the
plaint that the Plaintiff had maintained the relations with late
Fateh Singh and with the Defendants. It is stated that the
Defendant No.1 had assured the Plaintiff a share in the suit
property. It is stated that the Defendant No.1 asked theAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 30 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
Plaintiff to incur expenses upon the construction in the suit
property in 2012 and it was further settled that the Plaintiff
would be given the ground floor along with half share in the
roof rights of the suit property.
iv. However, in cross-examination, the Plaintiff has stated that
he had not visited the suit property after the death of Late
Fateh Singh nor he was aware of any material particulars
about the suit property. The cross-examination of the PW-1
is being reproduced hereinbelow:
“I cannot read English. I am 8th pass. I had passed
8th class from Sr. Sec. School no.1 Najafgarh. My
advocate has prepared the affidavit and the same
was read over to me and explained the same. It is
correct that any letter addressed to me at resident
being delivered to me. I do not know whether the
document Ex.PW1/D1 was delivered to me or not. It
is correct that Sh. Kishan Lal and Sh. Umrao Singh
was not same person. I have brought my Election
Card. (the witness has shown the Election Card
bearing no. FYW093809 showing their father name
was Kishan Lal and the address shown as 132, Block
G, Sultanpuri, New Delhi). I cannot brought the
School Leaving Certificate. It is correct that in my
school record my father’s name has mentioned as
Kishan Lal. It do not know whether any filed any
titled document of Sh. Fateh Singh in respect of the
property bearing no. 51/8, Gali No. 13, Nai Basti
Anand Parbat, New Delhi (Suit property). I not used
to go at the property bearing no. 51/8, Gali no.13,
Nai Basti, Anand Parbat. I was about 6-7 years
when my father Umrao Singh died and then I went to
the suit property. I had done the cremation ceremony
of Sh. Umrao Singh however, I cannot bring any
photographs or any document to show that IO hadAnil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 31 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
done the last cremation of Umrao Singh. I do not
know whether I had mentioned in may plaint or in
my affidavit that the year of death of Sh. Umrao
Singh. Id not know when Sh. Fateh Singh has
expired. I do not know whether I had mentioned in
my plaint and affidavit the date, month and year of
death of Sh. Fateh Singh. I was called at the
cremation of Fateh Singh. I have not done the last
cremation right of Sh. Fateh Singh. I have not
visited the suit property after the death of Sh. Fateh
Singh.
The area of the suit property is 50 years sq. yards. I
have been told about the area of the suit property by
my bua Stm. Kalawati. The width of the suit property
15 sq yards but I do not know its length. I do not
know the extent of construction in the suit property.
My mother has been thrown out of the suit property
after having the dispute with Sh. Umrao Singh. My
mother had shifted to the house of my maternal
grandfather after that I do know know till which
period my mother stayed at the house of my
maternal grandfather. I do know know hen my
mother got married with Sh. Kishan Lal. I came to
know from the days of my understanding
approximately 8 years of my age that Sh. Kishan Lal
was my father. It is correct that I along with my
mother was residing with Sh. Kishan Lal and during
that stay I have considered him my father. It is
correct that in all the record the name of Kishan Lal
was mentioned as my father.
The property bearing no. G-132, Sultanpuri, Delhi
was owned by my father Sh. Kishan Lal. It is correct
that I am residing in this property bearing no. G-132,
Sultanpuri, Delhi. Kishan Lal was having other
properties but he has sold the same as he was drug
addicted. I do not know whether my mother was
taken divorce from Sh. Umrao or not. I do not know
whether my bua Smt. Kalwati and Smt. Savitiri and
second marriage or not. I have heard only about 2Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 32 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
bua.
The site plan filed in the present suit was got
prepared by my bua Smt. Kalawati.”
In terms of the above-mentioned cross-examination, the
Plaintiff’s mother was thrown out of the suit property after
dispute with his father and she would obviously have left the
suit property, with the Plaintiff, before the death of the father,
i.e., prior to year 1992. It has further been admitted by the
PW-1 that he treated late Kishan Lal as his father and lived
all long with Mr. Kishan Lal and name of his father in all his
documents is late Kishan Lal. The Plaintiff has stated that he
had not visited the suit property after death of late Fateh
Singh, i.e., after 1995. The Plaintiff has stated in the plaint
that he has incurred expenses on the construction in the suit
property and the Defendant No.1 agreed to give ground floor
alongwith 50% roof rights to him. Neither material terms of
the aforesaid settlement are proved nor specifications of the
contribution made by the Plaintiff, in terms of amount, time
and effort have been proved. The person spending money on
construction would be aware of status of structure in the suit
property, whereas the Plaintiff was not aware of the same.
Moreover, if the Plaintiff did not visit the suit property after
1995 and was not aware of structure in the suit property, then
the contentions about agreement for construction and
incurring expenses are incredulous, which should have been
proved by clear evidence. No cogent evidence has been led
by the Plaintiff to prove the aforementioned contentions.
The collective reading of the material on record lead to a
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 33 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
conclusion that the Plaintiff was not aware of his rights in the
suit property and had somehow come to know about it
subsequently, which led to filing of the suit.
v. The Plaintiff should have clearly spelled out as to when and
how he became aware of his rights in the suit property, in
order to explain the limitation. However, the Plaintiff has
taken pleas of continuity of relationships and
acknowledgment of his rights by the Defendants. The
aforesaid pleas have not been proved by the Plaintiff. There
is nothing on record to infer that the Defendants have ever
treated the Plaintiff as their family member or the Plaintiff
has himself treated the Defendants as his family member.
The Plaintiff did not offer himself for conclusion of the
cross-examination and therefore, the material averments of
the plaint do not stand proved against the Defendant No.1.
vi. The Plaintiff has avoided all the uncomfortable questions by
choosing to not appear for conclusion of the cross-
examination, when the same started appearing against his
interests. The Plaintiff failed to prove that he was ever
treated as part of family after his mother was thrown out of
the suit property. In such a scenario, even if the suit for
partition has to be filed by the Plaintiff, the same should
have been filed within a period of 12 years from the date of
death of late Fateh Singh. Late Fateh Singh passed away in
the year 1995, whereas the present suit has been filed in the
year 2013. The Plaintiff attained majority in the year 1998
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 34 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
and even if the limitation is to be reckoned from the
aforesaid time, the whereas the present suit was filed after
the period of 12 years and is therefore, barred by limitation.
9.4.6. There is another reason as to why the Plaintiff is not entitled
to the decree for partition. The Plaintiff has stated that late
Fateh Singh was owner of the suit property and the
Defendant No.1 has admitted the same. However, there is no
document on record, whereby the ownership of the late fateh
Singh could even be remotely inferred. It has been held by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in, “Sunny Vs. Raj Singh
& Ors.: (17.01.2015): CS(OS) No.431/2006″, that there
exists the legal requirement of discharge of the onus of proof
by at least leading some credible documentary evidence in a
case, where partition is sought of valuable immovable
property and oral evidence is not to be treated by the Courts
as sufficient.
9.4.7. Though any decree of civil right remains binding only upon
the parties, however if a preliminary decree for partition is
granted by declaring the parties as owners, whether after
ascertaining the title or only in terms of their admission, the
same may eventually lead to a final decree for partition by
auction sale, if the suit property is not capable of being
partitioned by metes and bounds or the parties are not willing
to purchase the share of each other. In such an auction sale,
the public at large would participate by trusting the
declaration of ownership given by the Court, irrespective of
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 35 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
the fact that such declaration was on the basis of the
admissions of the parties and not on the basis conclusive
adjudication of title. Such a decree would risk the interests of
third parties and public at large and therefore, it is obligatory
upon the Plaintiff/parties to partition to clearly state and
prove as to whether the common ancestor had ownership
rights or leasehold rights or merely possessory rights in the
suit property, so that the course of final decree be
accordingly framed. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1
has stated their common ancestor late Fateh Singh to be the
owner of the suit property, without establishing or even
explaining on record as to how he was the owner. The
ownership or any other nature of rights of common ancestor
has not been proved. Therefore, on the basis of admissions
alone, the Plaintiff is otherwise also not entitled to the
preliminary decree of partition.
9.4.8. Therefore, in terms of reasons stated hereinabove, the
Plaintiff is not entitled to any preliminary decree for
partition. The Issue No.4 is decided against the Plaintiff.
9.5 Issue No.5: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for final
decree of partition of the suit property
as prayed for? OPP.
9.5.1. The issue No.5 is dependent upon the Issue No.4. Since the
Issue No.4 has been decided against the Plaintiff, therefore,
the Issue No.5 is also decided in the negative and against the
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 36 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
Plaintiff.
9.6 Issue No.6: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for
decree of declaration as prayed
regarding the suit property? OPP.
9.6.1. The Plaintiff has sought declaration of the ownership of the
suit property in its 1/2nd share. Though there is unanimity in
the pleadings of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 that the
Defendant No.2 and 3 did not have any rights in the suit
property, however the same was not proved by either of
them. The Plaintiff has stated that the Hindu Succession
Amendment Act was not applicable to facts of the present
case and the daughters did not have any right in the suit
property. The argument is absurd on the face of it and the
basis of the aforesaid contentions has not been provided. The
Defendant No.1 has stated that the share of the Defendant
No.2 and 3 was given in the lifetime of the late Fateh Singh.
The rights in the property of late Fateh would be created
upon the death of late Fateh Singh and therefore, prior
settlement is not of much consequence, however as a matter
of fact, the same has also not been proved, in terms of oral
uncorroborated testimony of the DW-2. Therefore, the
Plaintiff is not entitled to declaration of being the owner of
the suit property to the extent of 50% share. Further the
ownership of the common ancestor, i.e., of late Fateh Singh,
has not been proved on record in terms any documentary
evidence. Besides admission of the Plaintiff and the
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 37 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
Defendant No.1, there is nothing on record to conclude as to
how late Fateh Singh was owner of the suit property.
9.6.2. It has been held in discussion under Issue No.4 that the
Plaintiff and his mother were never treated as part of the
family. The Plaintiff has treated himself to be son of late
Kishan Lal and not of late Umrao and it has not been
explained by the Plaintiff as to how and when he realized
about his rights in the suit property. Even if the aforesaid
rights were created upon the death of late Fateh Singh, the
declaration of such ownership would have been sought
within a period of 3 years, when the right to sue accrues, as
per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Plaintiff has
neither proved that he was treated as part of family by the
Defendants nor has disclosed his knowledge as to when and
how, he came to know about his share in the suit property.
Even if the limitation has to be reckoned from the date of the
Plaintiff turning major, i.e., in the year 1998, the suit was
filed much after the period of three years. The limitation has
neither been explained nor the Plaintiff got his cross-
examination concluded in order to afford the opportunity to
the Defendant No.1 to question him about the same.
Therefore, this Court holds that the prayer for declaration in
the present case is barred by limitation. The Issue No.6 is
accordingly decided against the Plaintiff.
9.7. Issue No.7: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 38 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
permanent injunction regarding the suit
premises? OPP.
Issue No.8: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for
damages as prayed for? OPP.
9.7.1. The issue No.7 and 8 are dependent upon the Issue No.4 and
Issue No.6. Since both the aforesaid Issue No.4 and 6 have
been decided against the Plaintiff, therefore, the Issue No.7
and 8 are also decided in the negative and against the
Plaintiff.
10. Relief/Final Decision:
10.1. In view of the discussion and reasons stated hereinabove, the
suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed. The decree-sheet be drawn
up accordingly.
Digitally signed
by ANIL
ANIL CHANDHEL
CHANDHEL Date:
2025.06.09
15:56:20 +0530
Announced in the open Court (ANIL CHANDHEL)
today on 9th of June, 2025 District Judge-04
(West District)
THC/DELHI/09.06.2025
Anil Kumar Vs. Narain Singh. Page No. 39 of 39
Civil DJ No. 608114/2016
[ad_2]
Source link