Delhi High Court
Angoori Devi (Deceased) Through ... vs Sarswati Devi on 8 December, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 08.12.2011
+ C.R.P. No.14/2010
ANGOORI DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.........Appellant
Through: Mr.Ramkishan Saini, Advocate.
Versus
SARSWATI DEVI ..........Respondent
Through: Mr.Pushpender Sehgal,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Order impugned is the order dated 8.01.2010 vide which the
suit filed by the plaintiff (petitioner Angoori Devi) under Section 6
of the Specific Relief Act had been dismissed. This order is the
subject matter of the present petition.
2. The present suit had been filed under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act. The averments made in the plaint have been
perused. It was contended that the plaintiff is the owner of the
suit premises i.e. the property bearing no.A-17, Jhilmil Colony
Shahdara, Delhi comprising of ground floor and the first floor.
The petitioner filed eviction petition bearing no.8/2001 against
her tenant Rajender Kumar which had been decreed in her favour
on 09.4.2003. This eviction petition had been filed under Section
14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Execution petition had
been preferred. A bailiff had been deputed. The contention in the
plaint is that the bailiff had given vacant and peaceful possession
of the suit property to the petitioner and he had also submitted his
report dated 22.4.2004. Police aid had also been granted; the
bailiff had visited the suit property on 20.12.2004 to execute the
warrants of possession at 2.00 PM where the defendant was found
present; since the defendant had refused to vacate the suit
property the bailiff had taken forceful possession from her and
handed it over to the plaintiff; further contention being that the
plaintiff along with his family remained in the premises till 10.00
PM on 20.12.2004 thereafter returned to her resident at Jawla
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi; on the following day at 6.00 AM the
plaintiff came to the suit property; she found that the defendant
along with her family members had trespassed into the suit
premises by breaking the locks. Accordingly the present suit was
filed seeking possession of the suit premises.
3. Written statement was filed disputing these contentions;
further contention was that eviction decree had been obtained
against one Rajender Kumar which was also by a fraud; Rajender
Kumar was not a tenant and he was never in possession of the suit
premises; contention was that Sarswati Devi was always in
possession of the suit property right from 1997. This decree had
been obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with said Rajender
Kumar. It had not been disputed that on 20.12.2004 the bailiff
had come with the police at the spot; he was informed that there
was no such person by the name of Rajender Kumar living in the
suit premises; the bailiff returned without executing the warrants
of possession and as such the question of the forcible eviction of
the defendant Sarswati Devi from the suit premises did not arise.
The suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The trial court had framed the following four issues:
i. Whether the plaintiff had been put in lawful possession of
the suit property by the order of the court on 20.1.2004?
OPP
ii. Whether the plaintiff had been dis-possessed from the suit
property thereafter, as alleged? OPP
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession from the
defendant? OPP
iv. Relief.
Oral land documentary evidence had been led. Vide the
impugned judgment the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed.
5. The impugned judgment on the basis of the evidence on
record returned a finding that the petitioner had been put in
possession of the suit premises by the bailiff and had decided this
issue in favour of the plaintiff. The court was of the view that
there was no evidence to the effect that the plaintiff has been
dispossessed from the suit property and the plaintiff is not entitled
to the possession. The impugned judgment, however, shows that
there has been no discussion whatsoever on the evidence which
had been adduced both oral and documentary before the trial
court which comprises of four witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff
and one witness on behalf of the defendant. Court has not
adverted either to the oral or the documentary evidence adduced
by the respective parties. No finding has been returned
whatsoever on issue no.3. This is a fit case where the matter is
required to be remanded. The suit is accordingly remanded back
to the trial court who shall dispose of the matter on its merits
after considering the oral and documentary evidence already
adduced by the respective parties.
6. Since the suit property i.e. property no.A-17, Jhilmil Colony
Shahdara, Delhi falls within the jurisdiction of East District.
Parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge
(East), Karkardooma Courts on 10.01.2012 who shall assign the
case to the concerned court. This matter is an old matter; trial
court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
With these directions the petition is disposed of. Trial court
record be returned back.
INDERMEET KAUR,J
DECEMBER 08, 2011
nandan
