THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order Decided on: 15.11.2011
C.S. (OS). No.1194/2009
Baljit Kaur .......Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Kamlakshi Singh Chauhan, Adv.
with Ms. Kimmi Brara, Adv.
Versus
Shri Yogesh Kumar & Anr. .....Defendants
Through: Defendants already ex-parte
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)
1.
This is a suit for possession and permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the owner of a flat admeasuring about 100 sq yards. The said property is situated at 2B/73, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. Plaintiff had purchased the same for a lawful consideration from the previous owner.
2. The flat is situated on the First Floor. The chain of the title of the said property is stated herein below:-
a. Initially the property was in the name of Smt. Sukh Devi, W/o Shri Ram Dass, resident of 2B/73 Ramesh Nagar, C.S. (OS) No.1194/2009 Page 1 of 9 New Delhi. Smt. Sukh Devi was a lessee of the same which was leased to her by the Government of India on various terms and conditions.
b. After the demise of Sri Sukh Devi, her son, Shri Bhagwan Dass applied for probate vide Probate Case No. 151/89. The same was granted in his favour. Mutation was given to Sri Bhagwan Dass vide Letter No. L&D O/P.S-1/491 dated 13.8.1991 by Sri Labh Singh Chane, Dy. Land & Development Officer Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment. Sri Sukh Devi had two sons, Sri Bhagwan Dass and Sri Chaman Lal. The said property was subsequently was divided into equal part. One portion was held by each brother.
c. Both the brothers i.e. Sri Bhagwan Dass and Sri Chaman Lal sold the entire property to one Sri Shyam Sunder Gupta, S/o Sri H.L Gupta, resident of B-11/5 Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. And Miss Neena Chawla, D/o Dr. Prit Singh Chawla, resident of J-150, C.S. (OS) No.1194/2009 Page 2 of 9 Rajouri Garden. A sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- was paid as consideration for the above transaction. Documents like Agreement to sell, Consideration Receipt were executed on 10.6.1996. Sale Deed was in favour of Sri Shyam Sunder Gupta and Ms. Neena Chawla. A General Power of Attorney was executed in the name of Sri Gaurav Gupta, S/o Sri Shyam Sunder Gupta and Dr. Prit Singh Chawla, S/o Sri Pradhan Singh.
d. Thereafter, Dr. Prit Singh Chawla and Sri Gaurav Singh sold the said property to Sri. Sanjay Mahajan and Sri Shiv Kumar Arora by Agreement to Sell. A General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Smt. Neeru Mahajan, W/o Sanjay Mahajan and Smt Kamlesh Kumari W/o Shiv Kumar Arora on 16.6.1996 e. It is pertinent to mention that Agreement Sell and General Power of Attorney got in separate names for the reason that in case the sale deed is to be executed the attorneys can execute the sale deed in favour of the C.S. (OS) No.1194/2009 Page 3 of 9 agreement holder and previous owner shall not be required for the same.
f. On 8.10.1997, Smt Neeru Mahajan and Smt. Kamlesh Kumari further appointed Smt. Subhash Rani, W/o Sri Dwarka Nath, resident of 19/47, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and executed Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney, Receipt etc. in her favour. g. Subsequently Smt. Subhash Rani sold the said property for a lawful consideration and executed Agreement to Sell dated 14.2.2001 in favour of Sri Ram Harchandani, S/o Sri C.K. Harchandani, resident of H-305 New Rajinder Nagar and Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Smt. Sheela Harchandani.
3. It is submitted by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 and defendant No.2 are sons of Smt. Subhash Rani and they are in illegal and unauthorized possession of the said property.
4. Plaintiff states that while selling the property, Smt. Subhash Rani requested Sri Ram Harchandani to allow her to stay for sometime while she makes alternative arrangement for her stay. She C.S. (OS) No.1194/2009 Page 4 of 9 assured that she would vacate the property and hand over possession within 5-6 months.
5. Smt. Sheela Harchandani and Smt. Subhash Rani had a friendly relation and on that good faith Smt. Subhash Rani was allowed to stay there for 5-6 months. However, Sri Subhash Rani did not vacate the property despite various assurances. After the demise of Sri Subhash Rani defendant Nos. 1 & 2 continued to live there.
6. Having failed to get possession of the said property from defendant 1 & 2, Smt. Sheela Harchandani decided to dispose of/sell the said property. The same was purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the previous owner (Sri Ram Harchandani and Smt. Sheela Harchandani) went to the defendants and tried to persuade them to vacate the property. The defendants gave all their assurances that they would vacate the property.
7. Plaintiff paid a huge consideration and purchased the property on 9.4.2009 vide duly registered document at Office of the Sub Registrar-II, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
8. After purchase of the said property various meetings were held between the plaintiff and defendants along with the intervention C.S. (OS) No.1194/2009 Page 5 of 9 of previous owner but ultimately the defendants denied to vacate the premises. Since the predecessor of the defendants was permitted to live in the said property for sometime as licensee, she continued to live there and after her demise both her sons stepped into her shoes and continued to live there as licensee.
9. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the license was ipso facto terminated when previous owner sold the property to the plaintiff. In view of that it is submitted by the plaintiff that the defendants are in illegal possession of the said property.
10. Various requests were made on 15.4.2009, 20.4.2009 and 23.4.2009 by the plaintiff to hand over the possession but the said requests were not acceded to. However, ultimately the defendants refused to hand over possession.
11. Defendants also threatened to handover the possession to some third party after taking illegal gratification, if the plaintiff tries to take legal action against the defendants. Threat was given on 23.4.2009 when defendants refused to hand over possession to the plaintiff. Again on 29.04.2009 the defendants threatened the plaintiff C.S. (OS) No.1194/2009 Page 6 of 9 with the same consequences. Hence the plaintiff was bound to take recourse of law and filed the said suit.
12. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had already terminated the license orally on 29.4.2009. it is submitted by the plaintiff that the defendants have no right, title interest on the said property. When the property was sold to Harchandani the documents were witnessed by defendant No.1 son of Smt. Subhash Rani. defendant No. 1 also singed a no objection if his mother sold the said property.
13. The defendants were served on 10.08.2009 and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.01.2010. The plaintiff was granted time to produce ex-parte evidence.
14. The plaintiff Smt. Baljit Kaur PW-1 has tendered her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit being Ex.PW-1/A. She has proved the following documents :
(i) Letter No.L&D.O./PS-I/491 dated 13.08.1991 signed by Sh.
Labh Singh Chane, Dy. Land & Development Officer, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Land & Development Office, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.(Exh. PW1/1)
(ii) Certified copy of Agreement to Sell dated 23.12.1996.
(Exh. PW1/2) C.S. (OS) No.1194/2009 Page 7 of 9
(iii) Certified copy of General Power of Attorney. (Exh. PW1/3)
(iv) Original General Power of Attorney dated 01.02.1995. (Exh.
PW1/4)
(v) Original Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.1997 (Exh.
PW1/5)and consideration receipt 08.10.1997. (Exh. PW1/6)
(vi) Original General Power of Attorney dated 14.02.2001. (Exh.
PW1/7)
(vii) Consideration Receipt dated 14.2.2001. (Exh. PW1/8)
(viii) Registry dated 04.04.2009. (Exh. PW1/9)
(ix) Registered General Power of Attorney dated 09.04.2009.
(Exh. PW1/10)
15. It is the admitted position that despite of service of summon, no written statement was filed by the defendants. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff has gone unrebutted. Smt. Baljit Kaur, PW-1 has not been cross-examined. Thus, it is clear that the defendants have not intended to contest the prayer of the suit. On the otherhand, the plaintiff has been able to prove her case on the averments made in the plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession of flat in terms of prayer (a) and (b) of the plaint. The decree be drawn accordingly. The defendants are given three C.S. (OS) No.1194/2009 Page 8 of 9 months time to hand over the peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also entitled for costs.
The suit as well as all pending applications stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
NOVEMBER 15, 2011 C.S. (OS) No.1194/2009 Page 9 of 9