Delhi High Court
Kamlesh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 29 April, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1940/2011
Decided on : 29.04.2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
KAMLESH ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. V.K. Malik, Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Raj Malik and Mr. Lalit Vohra,
Advocates
versus
DILBAGH SINGH AND ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Defendants are ex parte.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)
1.
The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the
defendants (husband and wife) praying inter alia for a decree of
permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering in her peaceful
possession, occupation and usage of the suit premises, i.e., plot
measuring 500 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No.280 (1-01) and 281
(0-10), situated in the extended Lal Dora Abadi of village Mitraon, New
Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan (PW-1/2).
2. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff was
interested in purchasing a parcel of land in village Mitraon. Defendant
No.1 had approached the plaintiff offering to sell his plot of land to her
by representing that the said plot is situated in the extended Lal Dora
Abadi of the subject village. After settling the terms of sale, the
plaintiff had agreed to purchase the subject land for a total
consideration of `20 lacs. Thereafter, a Sale Deed dated 09.12.2010
was executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and it
was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar-IX. A copy of the
Sale Deed has been filed by the plaintiff and is marked as Ex.PW1/3.
The original Sale Deed has been produced by learned counsel for the
plaintiff for the perusal of the Court and returned to him. Vide
application dated 30.7.2011, the plaintiff had also applied to the
revenue authorities for seeking mutation of the subject plot in her
favour. A copy of the said application is enclosed with the affidavit by
way of evidence filed by the plaintiff and marked as Ex.PW1/4. It is
stated that the revenue authorities had carried out the mutation in
favour of the plaintiff and recorded her as the owner of the subject
land. To substantiate the said submission a copy of the Khatoni for the
year 2002-03 has been filed by the plaintiff and is marked as
Ex.PW1/5.
3. Learned counsel submits that the cause of action for instituting
the present suit arose when after execution of the Sale Deed and upon
taking over possession of the suit property, the plaintiff had planned to
undertake construction activity on the subject land. However, on
26.07.2011, she was accosted by the defendant No.2 (wife of the
defendant No.1/vendor), who was accompanied by some relations.
Defendant No.2 had picked up a fight with the plaintiff and had
threatened her that she would not permit her to raise any construction
or undertake any activity on the subject land. The defendant No.2 had
also asserted that at the time of executing the Sale Deed in respect of
the subject land her husband, the defendant No.1 had not consulted
her or the other family members.
4. It is stated by learned counsel that the defendants had lodged a
protest with the office of the Sub Registrar and threatened the plaintiff
that they would take forcible possession of the subject land from her.
Apprehending the threatened action, interference and obstruction in
the plaintiff's peaceful possession and occupation of the subject land,
at the hands of the defendants, she had to approach the local police
and had lodged complaints dated 27.07.2011 and 31.08.2011 against
the defendants. Copies of the said complaints have been enclosed with
the plaintiff's affidavit by way of evidence and are marked as
Ex.PW1/6 and PW1/6A. Simultaneously, the plaintiff had proceeded to
institute the present suit for permanent injunction against the
defendants on the apprehension that they may give effect to their
threatened action and cause interference in her peaceful possession
and occupation of the subject land.
5. As per the records, vide order dated 09.08.2011, the plaint was
registered as a suit and summons were issued to the defendants
returnable on 03.11.2011. On the same date, it was directed that the
parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the title and
possession of the subject land. On 03.11.2011, Mr. Arvind Rana,
Advocate had entered appearance for the defendant No.2, but none
had appeared for the defendant No.1. Counsel for the defendant No.2
was directed to file the written statement and the case was adjourned
to 19.01.2012. However, neither of the defendants had filed their
written statement and nor were they represented through counsel. As
a result, on 06.03.2012, the defendants were proceeded against ex
parte and the plaintiff was directed to file her affidavit by way of
evidence. Further, the interim order dated 09.08.2011 passed on
I.A.No.12590/2011 was made absolute during the pendency of the
suit. Subsequently, the plaintiff had filed her affidavit by way of
evidence along with the relevant documents. The ex parte evidence
was closed on 21.08.2013 and the suit was forwarded to the Court on
23.10.2013. Even thereafter, none had appeared on behalf of the
defendants to contest the suit. Same is the position today.
6. The Court has perused the averments made in the plaint and the
affidavit by way of evidence filed by the plaintiff in support of the said
averments and taken into consideration the documents filed by her
and marked as Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/6A.
7. As the suit has remained uncontested throughout, the
averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint are accepted as true and
correct. The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff by passing a
decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
agents, successors, assigns etc., from causing any
interference/obstruction in her peaceful possession, occupation and
used of the subject land, as detailed in the site plan (Ex.PW1/2),
alongwith costs.
8. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
(HIMA KOHLI)
APRIL 29, 2015 JUDGE
rkb/ak
