Delhi District Court
Smt. Vimala Mukandan vs Mr. T. Gopi Krishna Prasad Gopi on 25 January, 2010
Civil Suit No.: 449/01
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 12, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
Civil Suit No.: 449/01
Smt. Vimala Mukandan
Resident of 248, Gulmohar Park,
New Delhi110049
...............Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. T. Gopi Krishna Prasad Gopi
113, Naraina Vihar,
New Delhi110028
.........Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 04.04.2001
Reserved for judgment on : 23.01.2010
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.01.2010
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY OF
DAMAGES FOR USE AND
OCCUPATION/MESNE PROFIT.
JUDGMENT :
Page 1 of 33
Civil Suit No.: 449/01 1 This is a suit for possession and recovery or damages for use and occupation/mesne profit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2 Briefly stated the facts as set out by the plaintiff in the plaint are:
(a) Plaintiff is owner of flat no. 13, Block1, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi having purchased the same from Mr. Gopal Krishna Shambhog S/o Krishnayya Shambhog on the basis of Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will etc. She allowed the defendant being brother and her mother to reside as licencee in the said premises ;
(b) Defendant and his wife subjected the mother of the plaintiff to utmost torture and cruelty. Plaintiff had given various applications to Page 2 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Station House Officer, police station Naraina Vihar and when the police did not take any action to rescue the mother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was constrained to file Habeas Corpus criminal Writ Petition bearing no. 625/99 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.7.1999. By order dated 14.7.1999, the mother of the plaintiff was ordered to be produced in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi initially sent her to Nari Niketan but later on allowed her to stay with the plaintiff. Now the mother is staying at Puttaparthi and the plaintiff is bearing most of her expenses. Because of the conduct of the defendant and his wife, the plaintiff is not Page 3 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 interested to allow the defendant to reside in the suit premises ;
(c) A notice dated 11.4.2000 was served upon the defendant wherein the plaintiff terminated the th licence of the defendant w.e.f. 20 April, 2000 and called upon the defendant to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises along with all the fittings and fixtures and gave a false and frivolous reply to the said notice ;
(d) Consequent upon the termination of the licence, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff damages for use and occupation/mesne profit in respect of the suit premises from 21.4.2000 onwards.
3 Defendant filed his written statement. It is objected Page 4 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 that the documents on the basis of which the plaintiff is seeking the relief of possession and damages are void, inoperative and fraudulently executed and a suit for permanent injunction and declaration in respect of the alleged documents was filed in a civil court. It is further objected that the plaintiff is a benami who being a simple housewife and elder sister of the defendant, bought the suit property out of the share of the defendant in the joint family funds which was for the use and occupation of the defendant. The plaintiff being the elder sister took undue advantage of the trust reposed in her by defendant's family to look after the welfare and interest of the defendant who was new to city of Delhi. As per the mutual understanding and family settlement, the plaintiff had to buy a flat in Delhi for the defendant for the joint use by the defendant and his mother out of the funds which fell into the share of the defendant and his Page 5 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 mother after the oral partition of the assets of the father of the defendant by way of family settlement. But the plaintiff misused the trust reposed in her and fraudulently got the documents in question executed in her favour. It is further stated that the parents of the defendant namely late Shri P. Rama Murthi and Smt. P. Lalithamma @ Padmavati in the year 1987 decided to send the defendant to Delhi for job and in this respect, the parents of the defendant called the plaintiff and handed over the absolute responsibilities of the defendant's welfare to her. The defendant started a job. Father of the parties was a prosperous businessman having landed property and a transport company under the name and style of M/s Gyatri Transport Co. in partnership with Shri Laxman Reddy and Shri Tyag Raj which was doing the business since 1957 and had acquired various properties. The partnership was dissolved Page 6 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 due to illness of the father of the parties and he got truck no. AAN2169 and Rs. 50,000/ as his share. During family settlement, the defendant's father gave the truck to Sh. P. Vijay Kumar (son) as share of the family property and the remaining Rs. 50,000/ was handed over to the plaintiff on trust being the elder sister and brotherinlaw to purchase a flat for the defendant in Delhi. It was further decided that the remaining payment would be made to the plaintiff once the Nellore (A.P.) house would be sold. In the meantime, the plaintiff decided to purchase a house at Nellore which was a three room set constructed on 200 sq. yds. land for Rs. 4,00,000/ out of which it was decided that Rs. 1,50,000/ would be paid to the defendant's mother, Rs. 1,00,000/ to brother Shri P.Vijay Kumar and remaining Rs. 1,50,000/ was to be retained by the plaintiff for purchase of the property for the defendant in Delhi. Page 7 of 33
Civil Suit No.: 449/01 Hence, in total an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ was kept in trust with the defendant by the parents of the defendant. Defendant's father shifted to Delhi for treatment in the year 1990 and was th admitted to AIIMS but he expired on 15 May, 1991. In the year 1992, the plaintiff purchased flat no. 113, Block1, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi110028 in the name of the defendant and his mother. The defendant and his mother started living in the said flat and the defendant continued there till date. The defendant is regularly paying the house tax, DVB bills and MTNL bills. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the said property. The plaintiff possess lot of property in and around Delhi. The plaintiff is a very prosperous person as the same is evident by the fact that in the marriage of her daughter, she gave a Maruti Zen and a flat worth Rs. 55,00,000/ at Alaknanda, New Delhi. Besides this fact, the plaintiff bent upon grabbing the small flat Page 8 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 of the defendant. Defendant's mother on many occasions, asked the plaintiff about the documents for the suit property but she avoided this issue by saying that the same have not been procured from the court. The defendant believing in good faith did not doubt the bonafadies of the plaintiff. Defendant got married in the year 1998 and his wife was from an average middle class family. Taking undue advantage of their means and status in the family and the defendant's complete obedience, the plaintiff started harassing the defendant's wife for dowry and criminally intimidated and harassed the defendant's wife for dowry. This resulted into filing of number of criminal complaints by the defendant and his wife. The demand of the plaintiff was that the defendant must divorce his wife or she must get a flat as dowry. After the marriage, the plaintiff not only harassed the defendant and his wife but also Page 9 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 tried to create a wedge between the defendant , his wife and the mother. To criminally intimidate the defendant and his wife, the plaintiff demanded the possession of the suit premises from the defendant and his mother. It was told to the plaintiff that this is their joint property and she has no right to ask for the possession of the suit premises. The defendant was shocked to discover this fraud and he immediately filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff with police station, Naraina. Thus, ownership of the plaintiff qua the suit property is denied. It is also denied that the plaintiff allowed the defendant and his mother as licencee in the suit property. It is stated that the suit property was bought from the share of the defendant from the joint family funds for his use and occupation in Delhi. It is further denied that the plaintiff is bearing most of the expenses of the mother of the parties. It is further stated that the plaintiff Page 10 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 constantly interfering in the family life of the defendant and intentionally tried to create differences between the mother and the son. Receipt of notice dated 11.4.2000 is admitted. Rest of the contents of the plaint also denied in the written statement. 4 Replication to the written statement filed by the plaintiff wherein the contents of the plaint affirmed and reiterated. She also denied the preliminary objections raised by the defendant in his written statement.
5 My learned Predecessor by order dated 21.8.2004 framed following issues:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of breach of trust and used the family money to by the suit property in her name and is not the absolute owner thereof ? OPD.
2. Whether the defendant is a coowner or a mere licencee in the suit property ? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit premises together with damages and mesne profits ? If so, at what rate and from when ?Page 11 of 33
Civil Suit No.: 449/01
4. Relief.
6 I have gone through the entire record of the case including pleadings of the parties, evidence led by the parties and documents proved by the parties during the course of trial. I have also heard Sh.Vijay Chawla, counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Akhtar Hussain, counsel for the defendant. My issuewise findings are: 7 Issue no.3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit premises together with damages and mesne profits ? If so, at what rate and from when ?
Since, this issue revolves around the crux of this case, I am going to decide this issue prior to other issues. The plaintiff tendered her evidence by way of affidavit. This affidavit is similar on the line of the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. She proved original Agreement to Sell & Purchase dated Page 12 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 20.8.92 as Ex. P1, Receipt for a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/ as Ex.
P2, original General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff as Ex. P3, Will dated 20.8.92 in favour of the plaintiff as Ex. P6. During cross examination, it is admitted by PW1 that there is 12 years of age difference between the parties. She further admitted that the defendant was loyal to her just like her son. She further admitted that she had brought the defendant from Nellore to Delhi to get him employed and was living with her just like her son for two years. She further admitted that the house in which they used to reside in Nellore belonged to her mother and was purchased by her from her mother in the year 1992. It was a 200 sq. yds. having temporary construction. She further admitted that she demolished this temporary construction and constructed five flats on the said plot out of which one flat was two bedroom while the others were of one Page 13 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 bedroom each. She further admitted that she sold all five flats to different people and the total sale consideration for all the five flats was Rs. 13 Lac. She further stated that she purchased the suit property from her mother for Rs. 1.5 Lac. She further stated that she did not remember the mode of payment as the same was given to her mother by her husband. She admitted that she had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of her mother and the same is Ex. PW1/D1. She further admitted that she executed these documents to ensure that her mother would have the right to reside in the suit property during her life time. She further admitted that she executed a Will in favour of her mother which is Ex.PW1/D2. A suggestion was given that she executed these documents because she cheated her mother and or wrongly got the title deed in her name which was denied. It is further suggested that no consideration was paid Page 14 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 to her mother for the Nellore House or that it was understood that in lieu of sale consideration a flat would be purchased by her in the name of her mother and the defendant which was also denied by this witness. She admitted that she never stayed in the suit property. She further admitted that she never paid the electricity, water and house tax. She herself stated that the defendant paid the same as he used to reside there. She admitted that the defendant was married in 1998 and after his marriage, all disputes arose. She further admitted that till the defendant got married, there was no dispute with respect to the suit property. She further stated that she did not demand any rent for the suit property or ask the defendant to vacate. She further stated that at the time when Nallore property was purchased by her from her mother, the defendant and her father were also at Nallore. She further admitted that Page 15 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 defendant had joint account with her father at Delhi and also a joint account with her mother at Delhi. She further admitted that her daughter purchased a flat at Alkananda. She felt ignorance whether the draft was prepared from the joint account in the name of her father and the defendant bearing no. 16593, Canara Bank, Green Park Extension, New Delhi as it was prepared by the defendant. She further admitted that the money was given by her mother. She further felt ignorance whether her mother had given a sum of Rs. 50,000/ in her account at the relevant time. She further admitted that the money was given by her mother out of the proceeds received from her parental property at Ongole in Andhra Pradesh. She further admitted that Ex. PW1/D1 and Ex. PW1/D2 were executed after the flat was purchased by daughter of the plaintiff. She further admitted that her mother is well versed Page 16 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 only in Telgu and she cannot converse with other languages. She further admitted that her mother depended upon the others to interpret letters except those which were in Telgu. She further admitted that her mother was unable to point out or go to the M.C.D. Office or the electricity office or would be unable to write any application in English. She further admitted that the Power of Attorney in favour of her mother was executed by the plaintiff so as to make her mother feel secure as she stated that she had no property in Delhi. She further admitted that she executed Power of Attorney in favour of her mother and her mother was well secured and satisfied. She further admitted that her mother and she had filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court against the neighbours upstairs for unauthorized construction and upon the said writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court directed demolition of unauthorized construction. She Page 17 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 further felt ignorance about the mode of payment made to her mother for the purchase of Nellore property either in cash, cheque or by draft. A suggestion was put to her that she did not pay any amount to her mother for the purchase of the house or that the plaintiff had undertaken the property at Delhi in lieu of the sale consideration in the name of the defendant and her mother but she refused the said suggestion. She further admitted that since the date the suit property was purchased, she had not deposited any house tax. She further admitted that she never resided in the suit property.
Documents filed by the plaintiff perused. Plaintiff claimed her ownership in the suit property in accordance with Ex. P1 which is Agreement to Sell & Purchase, Ex. P2 which is Receipt and Ex. P3 which is General Power of Attorney. Thus, the plaintiff has to claim the ownership of the suit property till Page 18 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 she acquires complete title after completion of the sale transaction in terms of Ex. P1. No sale deed has been executed in her favour till date. Thus, till any sale deed has to be executed in favour of the plaintiff, till then the plaintiff is claiming her control over the suit property being general power of attorney of Sh. Gopal Krishna Shanbhog who was the earlier owner of the suit property. She claims entire control over the suit property in accordance with this document. In other words, plaintiff can claim ownership regarding those rights which were conferred by the previous owner of the suit property to the plaintiff till the sale deed has to be executed in favour of the plaintiff. Terms of this document have been perused. According to the terms of this document, the plaintiff has no right to file the suit for recovery of possession against any licencee. No specific power has been given to the plaintiff in respect of the Page 19 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 suit property.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon 94 (2001) DELHI LAW TIMES 841 (DB) titled as Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank & Ors. decided on 15.10.2001 where in para16, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:
"16. We have considered this aspect taking into consideration these judgments and we are in agreement with the view that the concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction. These transactions are different from mere agreement to sell since such transaction are accompanied with other documents including General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney and Will and affidavits and full consideration is paid.
This is what also has happened in the present case. There are two General Power of Attorneys, Special Power of Attorney and the Will apart from the agreement to sell. One of the General Power of Attorney is registered. Further the Will is also registered. Thus there Page 20 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 are two contemporaneous documents which are registered and they lend authenticity to the date of execution of documents. The power of attorneys' are for consideration within the meaning of Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Thus there is no doubt that interest has been created in the property in favour of the appellant. Possession is also been handed over. Thus the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would also come into play. The Bank is debarred from enforcing any right qua the property other than the right conferred by the agreement to sell.
The agreement to sell has nowhere reserved any right on the transferor either for resuming the property or payment of any additional money. The transferor is debarred from claiming back the property from the appellant. The net result of all this is that the rights have been created in favour of the appellant which cannot be defeated by the attachment order."
In the cited case as relied upon by ld. counsel for the plaintiff, the facts are entirely different from the facts of the Page 21 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 present case. The case relief upon by ld. counsel for the plaintiff is a case where the bank has filed recovery suit against the purchaser and disputed the sale transaction and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court regarding that suit filed by the plaintiff to recover the loss. In this case, the facts are entirely different in as much as that here the defendant disputed the right of the plaintiff for the purchase of the property which under the possession of the defendant and claimed by the plaintiff in this case. Moreover, no Power of Attorney has been proved by the plaintiff in her favour to file the present suit. As observed, it is the case of the defendant that he is in possession of the suit property since very beginning. Thus, it indicates that since the very inception, it was the intention of the defendant that he was living in the suit property being one of the owner of the suit property or on behalf of his mother and Page 22 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 as per the plaintiff herself, she executed the Power of Attorney and Will in favour of her mother. May be the interest was created in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff but she was never in possession of the suit property. Moreover, the plaintiff could exercise the right which she had conferred upon her by the person who had executed documents in favour of the plaintiff. In accordance with this document i.e. General Power of Attorney, the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit for possession. No Special Power of Attorney has been proved by the plaintiff to file the suit for possession. Moreover, neither Agreement to Sell Ex. P1 nor Receipt Ex. P2 are registered documents in favour of the plaintiff. It creates doubt whether the plaintiff herself made entire payment to the executant of those documents. Thus, without specific powers to file the suit for possession in favour of the plaintiff, she cannot file the Page 23 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 present suit for possession against the defendant.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon 163 (2009) DELHI LAW TIMES 411 titled as Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd. decided on 16.9.2009 where in paras 25 and 26, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:
"25. Turning to the facts in the present case, it is not in dispute that several of the documents through which the Plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from the Defendant are registered documents. Prior to the amendment to the Delhi Stamp Act, 2008, the agreement to sell, a leasehold property along with other documents like GPA, Will, letter of possession, etc., were not being compulsorily registered. An amendment brought about to the Delhi Stamp Act now envisages that stamp duty on 90 per cent of the sale consideration should be paid for registration or the agreement to sell, the GPA, Will, etc. In the instant case, Page 24 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 therefore, the agreement to sell dated th 30 December, 2004, GPA of the same date, the receipt, Will, possession letter being registered documents, cannot be brushed asides if they do not constitute documents of title. Likewise the lease agreement is also a registered document. The defendant assailing the contents of such documents while admitting the signatures thereon, will have a very heavy burden to discharge in order to prove that the said documents were in fact written up later on blank stamp papers got signed by the Defendant. Intention of parties has to be ascertained from the documents themselves.
26. A brief mention at this juncture maybe made of Section 53A of the TP Act. Even if one were to consider the mandatory nature of the Section 17 of the Registration Act subsequent to the amendment in the Delhi Stamp Act read with Section 53A of the TP Act, it appears that a registered agreement to sell, on which the stamp duty has been paid to the extent of 90% of the sale consideration, stands on a different footing than any other mere agreement Page 25 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 to sell. This agreement to sell together with the GPA, the receipt as well as the indemnity bond, are also registered, should be held to confer upon the Plaintiff all rights that it would have as an owner of the property. Otherwise it would really be meaningless for the purchaser of the property to pay so much stamp duty before the SubRegistrar including both sale consideration and got all the supporting documents in his favour, executed and registered by the seller in accordance with law. The Court, therefore, rejects the plea of the Defendant that what the Plaint has, is mere agreement to sell and not a sale deed, and therefore, could not be recognized as the owner of the property for the purposes of seeking eviction from the suit property."
Similarly in this case as relied upon by ld. counsel for the plaintiff, facts of the present case are entirely different from the cited case. As already observed neither Receipt nor Agreement to Sell are registered documents. Moreover, it is a Page 26 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 case as relied upon by ld. counsel for the plaintiff between the landlord and a tenant. Here, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was her tenant and he had paid any rent to the plaintiff. Rather, it is a case among family members. During the course of arguments, counsel for the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff is not claiming right as attorney but being owner of the property. But ownership of the property is disputed and the plaintiff herself admitted that she never exercised her ownership rights in as much as she never made payment of house tax, electricity, water bills etc. qua the suit property. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that out of the family funds, the plaintiff had purchased this property which must be either in his name or in the name of his mother or jointly. However, the court has to see what documents are in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession of Page 27 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 General Power of Attorney which is a registered document and as per this document, the plaintiff does not have specific power to institute the present suit or suit for possession by the executant of Power of Attorney Ex. P3 in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff could claim only those rights which have been conferred her by the executant of documents in favour of the plaintiff. She cannot claim any right which has not been conferred upon her by the executant of the documents. The plaintiff exercised her right qua the suit property either upon Ex. P3 or Ex. P4. Accordingly, Ex. P3 does not confer any power to the plaintiff to file the suit for possession against the defendant. Thus, the facts of the case of the judgment as relied upon by the plaintiff are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
In this case, this dispute is between sister and Page 28 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 brother and interest of mother of the parties, is also involved. It is the case of the plaintiff that she did not pay any house tax; she never resided at the suit property; she did not take any rent from the defendant and never asked the defendant prior to filing of the suit to vacate. She further admitted that she never paid the electricity bill, water charges etc. Rather, it is her case that after the marriage of the defendant, all the disputes have been arisen. Thus, in view of these facts it comes out that it is a dispute interse among the family members where the facts remain that the dispute is regarding whether the funds for the purchase of this property was made available by the father or mother of the parties to the plaintiff. It is also admitted case of the plaintiff herself that her mother was well versed in Telgu language. Therefore, in all probabilities it comes out that there was a possibility that the plaintiff took advantage of this fact Page 29 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 and got executed those documents in her favour. She further admitted that she executed few documents like Power of Attorney and Will to satisfy her mother and probability is there when her mother came to know about such facts then she might have doubted upon this transaction and with a view to stop her mother to take any action, she had executed such documents. It was the duty of the plaintiff to clear all such doubts and to call her mother in the witness box. But she did not take any such steps. It is also a matter of fact that the defendant moved an application to call mother in the witness box as a court witness but this court rejected this application for the reasons in the order passed upon the said application. But no such steps have ever been taken by the plaintiff to remove any such doubts. In these circumstances, the whole transaction comes under suspicion. Moreover, it is also admitted case of Page 30 of 33 Civil Suit No.: 449/01 the plaintiff herself that all disputes have been arisen after the marriage of the defendant. Thus, it comes out that at the initial stage, it might be the understanding between the parties that the property must be in the name of mother and including the parties as joint stock and for this reason, the defendant started living in the suit property and the plaintiff never questioned upon the same. For this reason, she never deposited house tax, water charges, electricity bills etc. In view of these observations, it comes out that the plaintiff never exercised her control over the suit property and she might aware that this is not her exclusive property but property of joint stock. Thus, this issue is decided against the plaintiff as she is not entitled for any relief of possession of the suit premises or damages or mesne profits.
8 Issues no.1 and 2:
Page 31 of 33
Civil Suit No.: 449/01 Whether the plaintiff is guilty of breach of trust and used the family money to by the suit property in her name and is not the absolute owner thereof ? OPD.
Whether the defendant is a coowner or a mere licencee in the suit property ? OPD.
Onus to prove these issues was upon the defendant. However, defendant has not led any evidence in this case to prove these issues. My ld. Predecessor by order dated 10.02.2006 observed that no witness on behalf of the defendant was present nor was summoned. Cost was also not deposited by the defendant and thereafter, DE was closed by my ld. Predecessor.
During the course of arguments, it is stated by counsel for the defendant that this order was challenged by the defendant before the Hon'ble High Court where the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the petition moved by the defendant.Page 32 of 33
Civil Suit No.: 449/01 Thereafter, the defendant also filed a special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and that special leave petition has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, order dated 10.2.2006 passed by this court becomes final. Thus, the defendant is failed to prove these issues and accordingly, these issues are decided against the defendants.
9 Relief.
In view of the observations made hereinabove, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. There is no order of cost. 10 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court today on 25.01.2010.
(Jitendra Kumar Mishra) ADJ (Central)12, Delhi Page 33 of 33