HARISH Vs. SARLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 6.1.2010 and the first appellate court dated 19.11.2013; by which the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession has been decreed. The suit for possession has been decreed with respect to the suit land/suit property being 75 sq yds of land situated in plot no.119, falling in khasra nos.509, 510 and 511 of village Chaukri, Mubarkabad, Delhi. Respondents/plaintiffs were also held entitled to damages of Rs.2,800/ - from the appellants (legal heirs of the original defendant no.1 Sh. Chander Bhan).

(2.) THREE issues were raised before the courts below and are also the issues raised before this Court on behalf of the appellants. First issue urged is that since the suit land had been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondents/plaintiffs did not remain the owners and consequently the suit for possession was not maintainable in the absence of Union of India being added as a party. The second issue which has been argued is that defendant no.2 died during the pendency of the suit but since no legal heirs of the defendant no.2 were brought on record, the suit hence abates as a whole. The third issue which is urged is that as there is no specific demarcation of the suit plot and consequently the suit for possession should not have been decreed.

(3.) SO far as the second aspect is concerned that the suit should abate as a whole because defendant no.2 died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal heirs were not brought on record, this argument is without merit because the defendant no.2 was only a proforma party and no relief was claimed against him. Defendant no.2 was added as a party because the defendant no.1/appellant claimed title through the defendant no.2. Since no relief was claimed against the defendant no.2 and the cause of action against the appellants being independent, the suit was entitled to be decreed for possession. This aspect has been rightly dealt with by the trial court at pages 30 and 31 of its judgment and which observations read as under: -