Tuesday, 28, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kamaljeet Singh Negi vs Pritam Singh And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 389 Del

Citation : 2006 Latest Caselaw 389 Del
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2006

Delhi High Court
Kamaljeet Singh Negi vs Pritam Singh And Anr. on 3 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 128 (2006) DLT 66
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J

1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.1.2005 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, in MCA 2/2005, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Delhi has dismissed the appeal arising out of the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by the Civil Judge dismissing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC of the petitioner herein.

2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi are as under :

That the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction and declaration; that the plaintiff is in possession of the portion of property No.X/425, Gali No.1, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Gandhi, Delhi : 110031, comprising of two rooms measuring 14' X 11' and 14' X 12', one kitchen with roof rights measuring 50 sq. yds, shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint (hereinafter referred to as suit property); that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 30 years continuously; that the plaintiff has paid the consideration to the defendant No.1 regarding suit property and the defendant No.1 executed a G.P.A., receipt, affidavit, Will and agreement to sell dated 27.5.1998, in favor of the plaintiff thereby acknowledging the receipt of consideration amount and transferring his all right, title and interest in favor of the plaintiff regarding the suit property; that the defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is the real brother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is also residing in the portion of the property of which the suit property is a party. The intention of the defendants have become dishonest and they in collusion with each other want to oust the plaintiff and hence this suit.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the order under challenge. I find no grounds to interfere.

4. CM(M) 1050/2005 and CM APPL.7236/2005 are dismissed.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter