Delhi District Court
Ram Dhan vs Raj Pal on 2 November, 2023
In the Court of Shri Ajay Kumar Malik : Additional Senior Civil Judge
of South West District at Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
CS SCJ.275/2018
CNR No.DLSW03-000381-2018
In the matter of :-
Ram Dhan
s/o Late Puran Singh
r/o VPO Paprawat,
New Delhi-110075.
........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Raj Pal Singh
s/o Jai Lal
r/o VPO Paprawat
New Delhi.
.....Defendant
Date of institution : 07.03.2018
Reserved for Judgment : 30.10.2023
Date of decision : 02.11.2023
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction filed by plaintiff against the defendant, his associates, agents, assignees, executors restraining the defendant not to encroach the suit property i.e. house admeasuring 450 sq. yards, consisting of two rooms, a big hall kitchen and toilet set situated in the village Paprawat, Najafgarh, Delhi at portion ABCD (as shown in red colour in the site plan) and directing defendant to remove the encroachment made by him at portion ABCD.
CS No.275/18 Page no. 1 of 6 Plaintiff's Case
2. Plaintiff is owner and in possession of the suit property which is inherited by the plaintiff from his father being ancestral house of Lal Dora of Village Paprawat, Najagarh, Delhi. It is stated that plaintiff is working in CRPF as driver having rank of Head Constable posted out of Delhi and his family is residing at the suit property alone. It is stated that defendant is residing in the adjoining house in the same village alongwith his family. It is stated that defendant has started construction in his house and during construction defendant encroached the land of plaintiff at portion ABCD of the suit property as shown in the site plan with the intention to grab the land of plaintiff. Plaintiff objected the encroachment carried out by defendant upon the suit property and defendant started quarreling with plaintiff & his family members and caused beatings to plaintiff & his children. It is stated that plaintiff made a call to the PCR and later the matter was settled between the parties on the condition that defendant will not encroach upon the suit property and he also removed the encroachment by defendant. On 21.02.2018 defendant did not stop the illegal construction nor removed the encroachment done by him at portion ABCD and again started construction upon the encroached portion of the suit property. On 22.02.2018 plaintiff made a written complaint to PS Chhawla against defendant in respect of illegal construction and encroachment carried out by defendant upon the suit property at portion ABCD as shown in the site plan and thereafter, defendant gave a statement to the police not to encroach the land of plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff tried his best to settle the matter with defendant but defendant did not mend his ways and started construction with the intention to encroach the land of plaintiff at portion CS No.275/18 Page no. 2 of 6 ABCD and raised wall upto 8 feet in height in the disputed portion of the suit property and constructed kitchen and bathroom. It is stated that on 26.02.2018 plaintiff made a complaint to police against defendant in respect of encroachment carried out by defendant upon the suit property but police did not take action against defendant. Hence, the present suit.
Defendant's Case
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant wherein it has been contended that plaintiff has no right to file the present suit against defendant and that the present suit is not maintainable in the present form. It is stated that by way of the present suit plaintiff is attempting to declare his alleged exclusive right, title and interest in the suit property. It is stated that plaintiff has not filed any legal, authentic, valid and enforceable document in respect of his alleged ownership in the suit property. It is stated that defendant is in use, occupation, enjoyment and possession of his property including the suit property & plaintiff is creating a false dispute by manipulating, forging and creating some false documents. It is stated that in the year 1998 defendant had purchased the property built upon a piece of land admeasuring 155 sq yds in village Paprawat, Laldora, Delhi from its erstwhile owner Smt. Bansati Devi. It is stated that plaintiff sold a room alongwith its first floor and upto sky mentioned in the site plan filed by defendant as Mark 'A' alongwith entire old boundary wall in between property of plaintiff and defendant, hence defendant is in exclusive lawful use, occupation and possession of his property. It is prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
CS No.275/18 Page no. 3 of 6 Issues
4. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 28.09.2019, the following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor for trial :
i Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against the defendant as prayed for? OPP. ii Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendant as prayed for? OPP. iii Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
5. Plaintiff no. 1 has examined himself as PW1, who in his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW-1/1 has stated and reiterated on oath the contents of the plaint. He has relied upon following documents :
(i) Ex. PW1/A is the original site plan.
(ii) Ex. PW1/B (colly) are the original photographs of the suit property.
(iii) Mark A i.e. photocopy of affidavit dated 28.09.2001.
(iv) Mark D is my Aadhar card (earlier mentioned as Ex. PW1/C in
affidavit and later de-exhibited)
(v) Ex. PW-1/D is the original electricity bill.
(vi) Photocopy of complaint to SHO dated 22.02.2018 is Mark B.
(vii) Photocopy of complaint to SHO dated 26.02.2018 is Mark C.
(viii) Mark E is the identity card (earlier mentioned as Ex. PW1/E in affidavit and later de-exhibited)
6. Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 08.08.2022 and matter was adjourned for defendant's evidence.
CS No.275/18 Page no. 4 of 6 Defendant's Evidence
7. Defendant has examined himself as DW-1, who in his affidavit in evidence Ex. DW1/A has stated and reiterated on oath the contents of the WS. He has relied upon site plan of suit property which is Ex. DW1/1.
8. Final arguments have been heard. I have gone through the judicial record.
9. Now I shall give my issue-wise findings on the following issues:
Issue no. (i) and (ii) i Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against the defendant as prayed for? OPP. ii Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendant as prayed for? OPP.
Since the issue no. (i) and (ii) are inter connected they are taken up together. The onus to prove both the issues was on plaintiff and in order to discharge his onus the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1. The plaintiff sought the relief of inclusion of part of wall in the area of land owned by him and same was the contention of defendant. The plaintiff not placed on record any ownership document of suit property thereby mentioning the exact dimensions and area of the suit property so as to ascertain the factum of inclusion or exclusion of said common wall in the area of the land owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff also failed to bring on record the scaled plan so as to calculate the exact area of his land which can ascertain the ownership of said common wall in favour of plaintiff. The ownership documents has CS No.275/18 Page no. 5 of 6 also not been produced by the defendant which could have been of any help for the plaintiff thereby ascertaining the side length of the property of defendant which falls towards the side of plaintiff or to calculate the area of the property of defendant for purpose of ascertaining the ownership of said common wall by any of party to the suit. The plaintiff also failed to summon any record from any authority which could have maintained the record of ownership and dimensions of the property of plaintiff. The defendant also not admitted anywhere the ownership of wall in favour of plaintiff but contrary he has claimed the said common wall to be that of the defendant. Plaintiff has miserably failed to bring on record any evidence in order to prove that the thickness of wall is included in the area of property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to discharge his onus.
10. Relief In view of my aforesaid findings on issues no. (i) and (ii), the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order to costs. Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Ajay Digitally signed by
Ajay Kumar Malik
Kumar Date: 2023.11.02
Announced in the Open Court Malik 14:05:10 +0530
on 02.11.2023 (Ajay Kumar Malik)
ASCJ cum JSCC cum Guardian Judge
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
CS No.275/18 Page no. 6 of 6