Suit for restoration of possession, mesne profits and for a permanent injunction with respect to House – The plaintiff acquired the leasehold rights on plot under the perpetual lease deed granted by the President of India in his favour and registered on 31.01.1966. -raised a construction over the plot and obtained the necessary sanction from the competent authority as per the site plan and got installed electricity, water, and sewerage connections in the premises.- entire family started living in the said house. – The marriage of plaintiff, as well as defendants and all sisters, were solemnized from the house in question. – When the relationship of Defendant No.2- the sister of the plaintiff, became strained with her husband, she started living in the said house along with her daughter. – Defendant No.1 for some time in 1971 had resided out of Delhi. – Father of the parties Kashmiri Lal Dhall died on 10.08.1980, leaving behind several properties at Delhi. – Defendant No.1 started living separately with effect from the year 1986. – He acquired a house and one more residential accommodation, – the mother of the parties died in the premises in question in the year 1990. The house remained in the custody/ possession of the Defendant No.2. At the relevant point of time,
the plaintiff was posted at Bombay.-Plaintiff came back to Delhi in the year 1993. However, at the same time, Defendant No.2 was permitted to occupy the house. Later on, it was found that Defendant No.1 had also started living in the said
house. – The defendants version is that Father acquired the property in the name of his eldest daughter and he constructed the house therein and later at the time of her marrige , he transferred the same in the name of plaintiff – at the time , the plaintiff is a student – no capacity to earn money – the defendant No.1 from 1996 has been resideing init as of its owner –
Trail court decreed the suit – High court confirmed the same –
Apex court held that
Firstly, the plaintiff has not come up with the case that the property was acquired in the name of Kumari Sneh Lata in the year 1963 and it was she who had spent the money for getting the land allotted from DDA and in the construction of the house. No case has been set up in the plaint to show that Kumari Sneh Lata had spent the
money in the construction of the house. He has suppressed the fact of allotment in the name of Kumari Sneh Lata.
On the contrary, it had been admitted in the plaint itself that family started residing in the premises right from the beginning.
On the contrary, there is admission made by the plaintiff that he never resided in the house.
Apart from that when we come to the source of money for the purpose of purchase of plot, admittedly, the plaintiff was a student and he was admitted in the year 1961 at IIT, Kharagpur. At the time when the land was allotted in the name of Kumari Sneh Lata, he was still a student and he had no source of income at the relevant time in 1963 or in January 1966, when the allotment was changed in his name owing to the marriage of Kumari Sneh Lata. Thus, obviously, it was Kashmiri Lal who had spent the money in getting the land allotted and also had raised the construction in the year 1965-66. Though the plaintiff has stated that the construction was made sometime in the year 1966, his version cannot be said to be reliable.
Apart from that, the plaintiff has admitted that when he came to Delhi on posting at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, he started living in the rented accommodation, as there was a paucity of accommodation for his stay in the house in question.
Thus, all the facts and circumstances indicate that it was a family property and not the exclusive property of the plaintiff . Thus, the Courts below have acted not only perversely but in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, while accepting the ipse dixit of the plaintiff and in decreeing the suit. Such finding of facts which are impermissible and perverse cannot be said to be binding. The legal inferences from admitted facts
have not been correctly drawn. Merely the fact that house tax receipt, electricity
and water bills and other documents are in the name of Dharampal would carry the case no further, as it was the father who got the name changed of Kumari Sneh Lata in question in the name of Dharampal. The receipts were only to be issued in the name of the recorded owner, but Dharampal never resided in the house as he was in service out of Delhi, obviously, the amount was paid by family, not by Late Dharampal. Thus, we find that no benefit could have been derived from the aforesaid documents.
In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeals and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents.