Anu Malhotra, J. - (1.)The appellant vide the present Regular Second Appeal No. 309/2016 assails the impugned judgment dated 29.8.2016 of the First Appellate Court of the District & Sessions Judge-East, Karkardooma in RCA No. 257/2016 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant herein Bharat Mal @ Bharat Kumar against the impugned judgment dated 28.3.2016 of the Senior Civil Judge-East, Karkardooma, Delhi in suit No. 6588/2016 was dismissed.
(2.)Vide judgment dated 28.3.2016 of the learned Trial Court in suit No. 6588/16, the suit filed by the plaintiff herein arrayed as the respondent to the present appeal seeking the grant of a decree of possession, recovery, permanent injunction and damages against the defendant (arrayed as the respondent herein) was decreed to the effect that the plaintiff, i.e., the respondent herein was held entitled for the suit property against the defendant/i.e., the appellant herein, in the capacity of better sub-licensee than the defendant/ i.e., the appellant herein restraining the defendant/ i.e., the appellant herein and his agents, successors, and attorney from creating any third party interest or selling or parting with the suit property to any other person than the plaintiff/i.e., the respondent herein, though the prayer made by the plaintiff, i.e. the respondent herein, seeking the recovery of an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards the arrears of rent and the prayer made by the plaintiff i.e. respondent herein seeking the damages against the defendant, i.e., the appellant herein were declined.
(3.)The facts brought forth on a perusal of the records of the present RSA No. 309/2016 and the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court and the Trial Court Record and the Appellate Court Record which have been received on requisitioning, are:
i. The suit property comprises of one room (front side on the ground floor) and one room (back side on the first floor) of property No. 17/182 Trilok Puri, Delhi;

ii. The plot/property No.17/182 Trilok Puri was allotted on licence to Sh.Ramji Lal s/o Hira Lal by the Delhi Development Authority in Jhuggi Removal Scheme as indicated by the EX.PW-1/6, the receipt bearing No. 245447 dated 22.12.1977 which indicates that the licence fee for the period 1.2.77 to 30.9.77 was thereby paid by Ramji Lal to the Delhi Development Authority;

iii. That Ramji Lal s/o Hira Lal was the original allottee of the said plot No.17/182, Trilok Puri as per receipt No.245447 Ex.PW-1/6 is not disputed by the parties to the lis;

iv. The said Ramji Lal transferred all his rights pertaining to the property aforementioned in favour of the plaintiff/i.e.respondent herein by execution of documents on 6.4.2009 and received valuable consideration from the plaintiff/ i.e. the respondent herein;

v. and vide the agreement to sell dated 6.4.2009 between Ramji Lal and the respondent herein, Ram Avtar S/oRich pal agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- to Ram Avtar S/o Richpal, and vide a possession letter dated 6.4.2009, Ramji Lal stated that he had delivered the said suit property to the purchaser Ram Avtar, i.e., the respondent herein;

vi. By the said General Power of Attorney dated 6.4.2009, the allottee of the suit property appointed the respondent herein as his lawful attorney and vide EX.PW-1/7 (colly) stated that he had sold one built up DDA plot/property No.17/182, Trilok Puri, Delhi measuring about 25 sq. yards to Sh. Ram Avtar s/o Richpal, arrayed as respondent to the present appeal, and also stated that he had received full and final cost of the said property from Sh.Ram Avtar and had delivered the actual physical vacant possession, ownership, permanent possession of the suit property to the purchaser;.

vii. Ramji Lal on being examined as PW-2 before the learned Trial Court affirmed the execution of his affidavit EX.PW-2/A and the aforementioned documents in favour of the respondent herein. Ramji Lal through his affidavit EX.PW-2/A stated that the defendant to the suit i.e., the present appellant being his relative, occasionally used to visit Ramji Lal at the said suit property. The plaintiff Ram Avtar, i.e.the respondent herein, was residing since 1980 as a tenant under the Ramji Lal.

viii. As per the affidavit Ex.PW-2/A of Sh.Ramji Lal, the defendant i.e., the appellant herein, started residing in the said property as a licensee under permissive possession in the year 1990 and in the year 2001, the defendant, i.e., the appellant herein, left the premises and went to his native village though some of the articles were left in the room and the defendant, i.e., the appellant herein used to occasionally visit the said room;

ix. As per EX.PW1/6, the family settlement, i.e., Samjhautanama, Sh. Ramji Lal came to Delhi in the year 1969 and started residing in the jhuggi from 1976 which was allotted to him by the DDA;

x. The appellant/i.e.defendant before the learned Trial Court and as appellant before the First Appellate Court contends that the suit property fell to him pursuant to a family settlement EX.DW-1/C dated 29.12.2011 executed by Sh. Ramji Lal pursuant to which Ramji Lal gave his half portion of the plot No. 17/182, i.e., front portion to his chacha (paternal uncle), i.e., Bharat Mal @ Bharat Kumar, i.e., to the appellant herein arrayed as defendant to the suit before the Trial Court;

xi. That as per the family settlement called Samjhautanama EX.DW1/C, dated 29.12.2011, the remaining half share of the property No. 17/182 Trilok Puri,Delhi was given by Ramji Lal to the plaintiff/respondent herein Ram Avtar (his cousin brother);

xii. The defendant/i.e.appellant herein through his written statement before the learned Trial Court submitted that he was in possession of the property since1976 as it had been given by its allottee to him to reside permanently therein and that the same was constructed by him i.e., the appellant herein and he had been residing in the same since 1976 till date and thus acquired possessory ownership right over the same and that there was no due rent or damages made out against him and in favour of the plaintiff/ i.e. the respondent herein.

xiii. The appellant herein through his written statement before the learned Trial Court stated that after the separate portion of the suit property was given to him by Sh. Ramji Lal to reside/live permanently, both , he and Ram Avtar, the respondent herein, constructed their half portion i.e. half portion in front side having been constructed by him, i.e. the defendant/i.e.the appellant herein and half portion in back side by Ram Avtar, the respondent herein and thereafter they started living peacefully in the same.