2022 (10) TMI 626 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking restraint on Defendant their agents, servants, employees, workers, friends, assigns, nominees - forcible and illegal demolishing the porch constructed in the property of the Plaintiff, being marked Red in color in the site plan annexed along with the plaint - HELD THAT - The question as to whether the sellers are required to be produced in such a case, would not be a substantial question of law, as the Plaintiff has chosen to lead evidence in the manner it best thought. The production of these two witnesses or otherwise did not have a bearing on the Trial Court's judgment because in any case, the Trial Court has analysed the sale deed and evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff could not prove his case. 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 - this Court is of the opinion that no interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, is warranted, in the present second appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant-Government of NCT of Delhi
- Dismissal of the suit by Trial Court and Appellate Court
- Plaintiff's claim of constructing a porch on the property
- Dispute over the ownership of the Raasta on the East side of the property
- Examination of witnesses and evidence presented by both parties
- Analysis of the sale deed and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court
- Appellate Court's affirmation of Trial Court's decision
- Argument regarding the necessity of producing sellers as witnesses
- Applicability of substantial question of law in the case
- Scope of interference in second appeal

Detailed Analysis:

The case involved a suit for permanent injunction filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant-Government of NCT of Delhi, seeking to restrain the demolition of a porch constructed on the property. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the suit, stating that the Plaintiff failed to prove his case. The Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the land and constructed the porch a decade before the suit was filed in 2005. The Defendant argued that the Raasta on the East side, where the porch was built, was public utility land and not part of the Plaintiff's property.

During the trial, both parties presented witnesses and evidence. The Trial Court analyzed the sale deed and concluded that the Plaintiff could not prove his rights over the Raasta on the East side as claimed. The Appellate Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the Plaintiff's case. The Plaintiff's argument regarding the non-production of sellers as witnesses was considered by the Court, which determined that it did not impact the Trial Court's judgment.

The Court clarified that the question of whether the sellers needed to be produced did not constitute a substantial question of law. Citing legal precedents, the Court highlighted the limited scope of interference in second appeals, emphasizing that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless there are compelling reasons. Based on this legal framework, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings and emphasizing the importance of not reappreciating evidence unless necessary.