w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Gay Properties Private Limited v/s Lekha

    Suit Appeal No. 1364 of 1994
    Decided On, 11 October 1996
    At, High Court of Delhi
    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE M.K. SHARMA
    For the Appearing Parties: Pardip Nandrajog, S.S. Saluja, Advocates.


Judgment Text
M. K. SHARMA, J.


(1) THE present is a suit instituted by the plaintiff praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering with the quiet peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff as disclosed from the plaint is that the plaintiff through three sale deeds dated 25. 1. 1994 purchased the suit land from the lawful owner Shri Kishan Chand. The said three sale deeds w ere duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi and in pursuance thereof the vacant physical possession of the suit land was also handed over and taken over by the plaintiff from Kishan Chand on 25. 1. 1994 and thereafter the plaintiff continued to be in peaceful physical possession of the suit land. It is stated that prior to the purchase of the suit land by the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 w as having a dispute with Shri Roshan Lal, the predecessor in interest of Kishan Chand, and also with Kishan Chand himself regarding the possession of the suit land. According to the plaintiff the possession of the suit land was always with its owner Shri Roshan Lal and Shri Kishan Chand and after the death of Shri Roshan Lal exclusively with Shri Kishan Chand who continued to remain in peaceful physical possession of the suit land. However, even though the defendant No. 1 did not have physical possession of the suit land yet he in connivance with the Patwari managed to get recorded his possession qua the land in question in the revenue records when actually at site the physical possession of the land in question was always that of the owners. In order to buy peace and to settle the matter without prejudice to its rights the plaintiff gave a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 to defendant No. 1 on 9. 4. 1994 (Rupees fifty thousand was paid by cheque drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank and Rupees fifty thousand was paid in cash). The said amount of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 was stated to have been paid to defendant No. l in consideration of his giving up his claim of possession qua the land in question. However, since even after the receipt of the aforesaid amount the defendant No. 1 continued to harass the plaintiff and on 30. 6. 1994 the defendants 2 to 4 came to suit land and attempted to demolish the boundary wall enclosing the suit land. Hence this suit.


(2) SUMMONS having been issued to the defendants, the defendants appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code. Subsequently however, the defendants failed to appear nor any written statement was filed on their behalf The application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code was also dismissed since no body pressed for the same. The court directed that the suit be proceeded exparte as against the defendants and allowed the plaintiff to lead evidence by filing affidavits, which were filed by the plaintiff within the stipulated time. The plaintiff has also produced certain documents which have been exhibited.


(3) THE sale deeds dated 25. 1. 1994 through which the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff from its owner, Shri Kishan Chand have been exhibited as Ex. Public Witnessl/2, Public Witness1/3 and Public Witness1/4. The said three sale deeds dated 25. 1. 1994 were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi and the same was executed by the owner of the suit land namely - Shri Kishan Chand in favour of the plaintiff. There is no rebuttal evidence to the evidence led by the plaintiff. It is thus established that after the allotment of the suit land to Shri Roshan Lal and Shri Kishan Chand by the Ministry of Rehabilitation the names of Shri Roshan Lal and Shri Kishan Chand were being recorded in the revenue records as owners of the suit land and after the death of Shri Roshan Lal the rights, titles and interest in the suit land passed on to Shri Kishan Chand.


(4) THE plaintiff has also been able to prove that immediately after the purchase of the aforesaid land he had taken over vacant physical possession of the land from Shri Kishan Chand on 25. 1. 1994 and continued to be in physical possession of the suit land. However, from the evidence on record it appears that the name of defendant No. 1 was recorded in the revenue records in respect of his possession qua the suit land. In view of the aforesaid fact it appears that the plaintiff gave a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 to defendant No. 1 on 1. 4. 1994 and a receipt thereof was given by the defendant No. 1. The said receipt has also been produced in the suit and has been marked as Ex. Public Witnessl/5. The said receipt also bears the signatures of defendant No. 4 who signed the same as a witness. After the receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 from the plaintiff the defendant No. 1 in consideration thereof and in consideration of giving up all claims for possession qua the suit land. executed an affidavit to the effect that the possession of the suit land was with the plaintiff and that neither the defendant No. 1 nor his legal heirs had any right, title, interest, claim or concern of any nature in respect of the suit land. The said affidavit executed on 18. 4. 1994 has also been exhibited and marked as Ex. Public Witness 1/6. Vide mutation No. 1051-1052 dated 18. 2. 1994 the mutation of the suit land was sanctioned and recorded in favour of the plaintiff. Photo copy of the Jamabandi dated 18. 2. 1994 showing the mutation of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff is exhibited and marked as Ex. Public Witnessl/7. During the aforesaid proceedings for mutation and recording the plaintiffs possession qua the suit land the defendant No. 1 appeared in the said proceedings before the Revenue Authorities and made a statement which was duly recorded by the Revenue Authorities on 19. 5. 1994. The Revenue Authorities passed orders for correction of the Girdawari entries in favour of the plaintiff. The certified copy of the statements dated 12. 5. 1994 made by defendant No. 1 and the Khasra Girdawari dated 19. 5. 1994 showing the possession of the plaintiff qua the suit land have been exhibited and marked as Ex. Public Witnessl/8 and Public Witness1/12. In view of all these documents produced by the plaintiff it is proved and established that the defendants by way of said receipts and affidavits had expressly acknowledged that they have no right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. The said fact is also corroborated by the own statement of defendant No. 1 made before the Tehsildar o

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
n 19. 5. 1994. It is proved and established that an attempt was made by defendants No. 2 to 4 on 13. 6. 1994 to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff qua the suit land. (5) IN view of the findings arrived at above, I am of the view that the plaintiff has been able to establish his claims made in the plaint to the hilt. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The defendants, their servants and agents are restrained from interfering with the quiet and peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The decree-sheet be drawn in terms of above.
O R