Delhi District Court
Mohd. Talha S/O Late Mohd. Ibrahim vs Mohd. Shahid S/O Mohd. Khalid on 20 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TANVI KHURANA, CIVIL JUDGE1 (South)
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
In the Matter of
Civil Suit No.521/14
Case ID No.:02406C0299242011
Mohd. Talha S/o Late Mohd. Ibrahim
R/o39,T2, Chandan Hulla, Extension
New Delhi110074 .........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mohd. Shahid S/o Mohd. Khalid
2. Mohd. Shakir S/o Mohd. Khalid
Both R/o:
Village Duadpur, Near Khara Kuan
Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan
Presently At:
Opposite MCD Primary Shool,
Village: Chandan Hulla
New Delhi110074
3. Younus S/o Abdul Ghafoor @ Mulla Ghaffora
R/o Opposite MCD Primary School,
Village: Chandan Hulla, New Delhi110074
4. S.H.O
P.S. Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi. .........Defendants
Date of institution :25.11.2011/20.01.2014
Date of reserving the judgment :Nil.
Date of pronouncement :20.01.2014
Decision :Decreed
Present: Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
Suit No. 521/13
Mohd. Talha Vs. Mohd. Shahid Page 1 of 3
JUDGMENT :
The present suit has been filed by plaintiff seeking decree for permanent injunction against defendants restraining them from carrying out any construction on the plot bearing no. 243, in khasra no. 153, (new khasra no. 243) admeasuring 150 Sq. Yards, Chandanhola Village, New Delhi74.
2. Succinctly, as per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the above mentioned property admeasuring 300 Sq. yards which was purchased from Sh. Ramphool vide a register sale deed dated 09.01.1989. The suit property is vacant land bound by boundary wall. Defendant no. 1 to 3 want to grab the property and have threatened the plaintiff and other members of family.
3. It is submitted that on 21.11.2011 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant no. 1 and 2 are raising construction at the suit premises. Despite requests, they have not stopped. Hence, the present suit was filed.
4. On notice the written statement was filed raising objections to the maintainability of the suit, suppression of material facts, no cause of action, fraud, no locus standi and misjoinder of the parties. On merits all the contentions were denied and it was stated that the plaintiff has sold the property to the father of defendant no. 1 and 2 for lawful consideration by agreement to sell, GPA, Will, Affidavit etc. on 26.09.1989. The defendants maintained their claim over the property.
5. Replication in reassertion of the claim was filed by plaintiff.
Suit No. 521/13 Mohd. Talha Vs. Mohd. Shahid Page 2 of 36. The parties filed joint application for compromise and consent decree in the present suit. As per the application and statement of the parties defendant no.1 and 2 agreed to not claim any right,title or interest over the suit property and to hand over the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. They agreed to admit the plaintiff as sole and absolute owner in possession of the suit property. It was also agreed that all the documents in original relied upon by the defendant no. 1 and 2 in Suit No. 602/2011 pending at this court will be handed over to the plaintiff or would be withdrawn by the plaintiff. In the light of the settlement arrived at , this Court is of the considered opinion that the parties are left with no issue which requires adjudication from this Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
8. Accordingly, in the light of settlement arrived at the present suit is decreed as per settlement. The parties, however, are directed to bear their own costs and will be bound by their statements recorded in court. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced in the open court
on 20th January 2014 (TANVI KHURANA)
The judgment contains 03 pages, Civil Judge01 (South)
all checked and signed by me. Saket Courts/New Delhi
20.01.2014
Suit No. 521/13
Mohd. Talha Vs. Mohd. Shahid Page 3 of 3