Shri Devender Kumar & Anr vs Sh.Rajbir Singh Tokas & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1563 Del

     *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  CS(OS)2393/2006

%                                 Date of decision: 21.04.2009

SHRI DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR                       .......         Plaintiffs
                        Through: Ms Smirti and Ms Chanchal, Advocates

                                Versus

SH.RAJBIR SINGH TOKAS & ORS                        ....... Defendants
                        Through: Mr P.S. Singh, Advocate for defendants
                        1 and 2.


CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest?


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The two plaintiffs have sued for relief of permanent injunction

restraining the three defendants and their agents from, in any

manner, interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs

over the suit premises bearing No.352-E/23/1, situated at the

Revenue Estate of village Mohammad Pur Munirka commonly known

as Munirka Village, New Delhi. The plaint was accompanied with an

application for interim relief. Vide ex parte order dated 22nd

December, 2006 the parties were ordered to maintain status quo qua

possession and title of the aforesaid property. The said order

continues till date.

2. The defendants are related to each other, the defendants 2 and

3 being the father and mother respectively of the defendant No.1. It

is the case of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the said

property vide a registered sale deed executed by the defendant No.1

in favour of the plaintiffs; that the said property admeasures 222 sq

yds and forms part of a larger property admeasuring 422 sq yds; that

the defendant No.1 had in turn acquired the entire property

admeasuring 422 sq yds from his father, the defendant No.2, again

vide a registered sale deed; that the plaintiffs, since the sale deed in

their favour, are in peaceful possession of the property, a portion of

which is stated to have been let out with the tenant therein paying

the rent to the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs also claim to have obtained

electricity connection in the property in their name and the property

is stated to be recorded with the house tax department in the name

of the defendant No.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that owing to

increase in prices of the property, the defendants, inspite of the sale

of the property as aforesaid to the plaintiff, started asking for more

monies and upon refusal of the plaintiffs to do so threatened to

forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the property purchased by

them. Upon service, the defendants 1 and 2 filed a written

statement admitting the case of the plaintiffs as to the title of the

plaintiffs to the property in toto. The said defendants however

denied having threatened the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever.

3. The defendant No.3 though is the wife of the defendant No.2

could not be served by ordinary process and was ordered to be

served by publication. She failed to appear inspite of publication and

was vide order dated 3rd March, 2008 ordered to be proceeded

against ex parte.

4. Finding the defendants 1 and 2 to have in their written

statement admitted the title of the plaintiffs to the property, on 2 nd

September, 2008 it was ordered that no useful purpose will be

served by relegating the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 for

evidence as to whether the defendants 1 and 2 had threatened the

plaintiffs or not. The defendants 1 and 2 were directed to appear

before the court to make a statement on the basis whereof the suit

insofar as against defendants 1 and 2 could be decreed.

5. Only the defendant No.1 appeared on 20th January, 2009

pursuant to the direction aforesaid. It was informed that the

defendant No.2 is very old and paralyzed and unable to come to the

court and the counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 was authorized to

make statement on behalf of the defendant No.2. The statement of

the defendant No.1 and the counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 2

was recorded on 20th January, 2009. They have in their statement

stated that they admit the plaintiffs' claim or title to the property

aforesaid. They further stated that they have never interfered with

the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit property and claimed no

right, title or interest in the suit property. They also gave an

undertaking to this court not to themselves or through their agents

interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs of the

property. The aforesaid undertakings of the defendants 1 and 2

were accepted by this court and the defendants 1 and 2 were

ordered to be bound by the said undertakings and upon acceptance

of the said undertaking the plaintiffs did not press for a decree for

permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2.

6. The plaintiffs have led ex parte evidence qua the defendant

No.3 by filing affidavits by way of examination in chief of both the

plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have proved the sale deed executed by the

defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 with respect to the

entire property admeasuring 422 sq yds as Exhibit PW1/2 and the

sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs

with respect to the suit property admeasuring 222 sq yds as exhibit

P2. Site plan of the property has been proved as exhibit P1 and the

bill of the electric connection in the name of the plaintiff No.1 has

been proved as exhibit PW1/4.

7. The evidence of the plaintiffs remains unrebutted. From the

sale deed aforesaid, the plaintiffs are found to be owners of the suit

property admeasuring 222 sq yds. It is in evidence that the plaintiffs

are in peaceful possession of the property. The husband and the son

of the defendant no.3 have already admitted the claim of the

plaintiffs and undertaken not to disturb the possession of the

plaintiffs. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs have also become

entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as claimed against the

defendant no.3 also.

8. Accordingly a decree for permanent injunction is passed in

favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.3 restraining

the defendant No.3 from either herself or through her agents

interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs of the

premises admeasuring 222 sq yds bearing No.352-E/23/1, situated

at Munirka Village, New Delhi. However, in the facts aforesaid the

parties are left to bear their own costs. The decree sheet be drawn

up.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) April 21, 2009 M