TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be pleased to: a) Restrain the Defendant their agents, servants, employees, workers, friends, assigns, nominees from forcibly and illegally demolishing the porch constructed in the property of the Plaintiff, being marked Red in color in the site plan annexed along with the plaint. b) The costs of this suit may also be allowed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. c) Any other and such further relief as this Hon'ble court may deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the Plaintiff." 3. The said suit came to be dismissed vide order dated 28th April 2014 in suit no. 177/2014 titled Shri Rameshwar Singh v. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi passed by the Civil ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intiff's claim is wrong and misleading and that the Raasta which is 10 feet wide on the East side of the Plaintiff's property is being used as a public utility for more than 20 years over which the porch has been constructed. In the written statement, the plea taken was that even as per the sale deed, only the land was sold in favour of the Plaintiff and there was no the Raasta on the East which was sold to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Raasta was not part of the property which was sold to the Plaintiff and it was for common use. 6. Trial was held in the suit and parties led their evidence. Witnesses were produced both by the Plaintiff as also the Defendant. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntioned in the sale deed nor has been proved by the Plaintiff. The best evidence for proving this fact were the depositions of the sellers Shri Kanwar Singh and Shri Risal Singh, which the Plaintiff did not produce in his evidence. 18. Furthermore, if for an instance, it is assumed that in the sale deed Exhibit PW3/1 the said 10 feet wide Raasta on the East was left by the original sellers from their own property then by that analogy even the 15 feet wide Raasta on the West and 30 feet raasta on the South must also have been left by the original sellers from their own property. But the Plaintiff does not claims so and claims that only 10 feet wide raasta on the East was left by the original sellers from their own property, which is contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iff has to stand on his own legs as per judge made laws. Even otherwise, plaintiff has put suggestion to this witness that said 10th ft. wide raasta on east side of plot in question, was left by plaintiff in his own property alongwith the length of the property. Said suggestion was refuted by this witness. Even otherwise, said contention of plaintiff was not mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, said suggestion was an improvement on the part of plaintiff, which did not probabilize the case of plaintiff. Thus, I discarded the said claim of plaintiff. 24. The net result is that, plaintiff failed to prove his case based on preponderance of probabilities. Ld. Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit of plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid apprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Plaintiff could not prove his case. 12. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the Appellate Court also having upheld this very finding, no substantial question of law arises in this matter and there is no ground for warranting interference against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court. It is settled law that in a second appeal, the scope of interference is quite narrow. The Supreme Court in C Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors. v. C Jayarama Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 1912 has held as under: "25. The question as to whether a substantial question of law arises, has been a subject matter of interpretation by this Court. In the judgment reported as Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan: (1....