Delhi District Court
Sh. Gurdev Singh @ Gurev Singh vs Sh. Mahender Singh on 7 July, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
CS SCJ No. 1235/2017
CNR Number: DLWT03-002536-2017
Sh. Gurdev Singh @ Gurev Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Piara Singh,
R/o A-103-B, Khasra No.27/15,
Upper Ground Floor & Third Floor,
Uday Vihar, Village Nilothi Extension,
Delhi-110041. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o A-103-B, Khasra No.27/15,
Second Floor, Uday Vihar,
Village Nilothi Extension,
Delhi-110041.
2.Sh. Jasbir Singh,
R/o A-103-B, Khasra No.27/15,
Second Floor, Uday Vihar,
Village Nilothi Extension,
Delhi-110041. ......Defendants
Date of Institution : 01.09.2017
Date on which judgment was reserved : 03.07.2021
Date of pronouncing judgment : 07.07.2021
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants seeking a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants and the persons claiming through them from creating any obstacles and hindrance in the ingress and outgress of the plaintiff and his family members in the common space / parking slot in the suit property and further restrain the defendants from creating any hindrance and obstacle for using the CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 1 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:39:03 -07'00' common space/parking slot for the purposes meant for i.e. parking of vehicles etc or further restrain the defendants to forcibly break open the locks of the door of the roof on the third floor of the suit property, which is exclusively in the possession of the plaintiff.
2. Further, a decree of mandatory injunction is sought thereby seeking directions against the defendants and the persons claiming through them to immediately remove the unused articles which are creating hindrance, obstacles and nuisance for ingress and outgress from the parking slot/common space in the suit property and further the defendants be directed to immediately remove the embarking on the wall of the common space/parking slot in the suit property. Brief facts of the present case as stated by the plaintiff are as under:
3. Plaintiff is the legal, lawful and absolute owner of the property, underneath bearing no.A-103-B, Land area measuring 70 sq. yards, pertaining to Khasra No.27/15, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Nilothi, Delhi, abadi known as Uday Vihar, Nilothi Extension, New Delhi-110041 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') by virtue of Registered Will, Agreement to Sell, GPA, Possession Letter, Receipt etc executed by Sh. Piara Singh, who was the actual owner of the suit property. Late Sh. Piara Singh was the father of the plaintiff and during his lifetime, sold and transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff after fresh construction of the suit property is in the actual physical possession of portion in the ground floor, upper ground floor and third floor with exclusive roof rights in the property.
4. In April, 2013, the builder Sh. Hardev Singh approached the plaintiff as the plaintiff wanted to rebuild the suit property. Accordingly, a CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 2 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:39:16 -07'00' collaboration agreement dated 05.04.2013 was executed between them wherein terms and conditions were reduced into writing. In view of the collaboration agreement, the plaintiff handed over the first and second floors without roof rights alongwith common parking to the builder Sh. Hardev Singh, who further sold the said portion to the defendant no.1 and
2. The defendant no.1 is in possession of the first floor of the suit property and the defendant no.2 is in possession of the second floor of the suit property. The leftover portion on the ground floor is a parking slot, which is common to all the occupants/owners of the suit property and the same is not in exclusive possession and use of any one of the occupants of the suit property. The said parking slot is to be used commonly by all the occupants for ingress- egress and for parking purposes and nobody has any specific right to obstruct upon the said common space/slot on the ground floor of the suit property. It is further made clear by the plaintiff with the builder as well as the defendants at the time of execution of documents of sale that the roof rights upon the third floor would remain with the plaintiff and the defendants have limited right for ingress- egress in the roof only for the purpose to rectify any problem in water tank etc. The keys and possession of the roof would remain with the plaintiff and the defendants shall not claim any right, title and interest on the roof of the suit property, at any point of time in future.
5. It is submitted that the defendants with malafide intention illegally and unlawfully wanted to grab the common parking portion and the roof portion in the suit property. Defendants with their family members started creating nuisance without any reasons with the plaintiff and his family members and started threatening them either to accept unwarranted CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 3 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:39:26 -07'00' demand i.e., handing over the parking portion alongwith the roof rights exclusively to the defendants otherwise the defendants shall capture the said portion under-pressure as they have high influence with the police officials as well as with the politicians and muscle mans. The defendants and their family members regularly started threatening the plaintiff and his family members that they would easily involve them in false criminal cases with the help of their lady members etc. The wife of the plaintiff made a written complaint dated 17.10.2016 to the SHO, PS Nihal Vihar regarding threats received from the defendant no.2 and his family members alleging that his daughters would involve the son of the plaintiff in false case and easily finish his life. However, no action was taken by the police.
6. Thereafter, the defendants encroached upon the parking slot/portion by embarking on the wall of the parking and not allowing the plaintiff to use the said common portion meant for ingress- egress and for parking. The defendants and their family members had illegally and unlawfully stored the unused articles for the purpose to grab the said parking and when the plaintiff objected for such hindrance and obstacles, the defendants become violent, physical and manhandled the plaintiff and his family members and made a false complaint dated 16.08.2017 against the plaintiff and his family members. Under the influence of the defendants, the investigating officer of PS Nihal Vihar threatened the plaintiff and his family members either to compromise with the defendants or face the dire consequences. The plaintiff was left with no option and to get rid off the threats from the police officials to involve them in a false criminal case, signed the documents. It is alleged that the statement date 16.08.2017 CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 4 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:39:35 -07'00' given before the PS Nihal Vihar, is illegal, under pressure and not accepted to the plaintiff at all.
Written statement by the defendants
7. The defendants have filed their written statement wherein it is stated that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts willfully. The case of the plaintiff happens to be the case against the member of SC community as the defendants belong to SC. The plaintiff and his wife and daughter have beaten the wife of the defendant no.1. With respect to the act by plaintiff against the defendants, a complaint under SC/ST Act is pending against plaintiff. The motive of the plaintiff is tactful that both the defendants should leave the property, in which they are residing. The plaintiff wants to grab the property. The plaintiff and his family members call the defendants untouchable and when asked about the key of the roof to check their water tanks, the defendants instead of handing over the same, throw the key on the ground and instruct the defendants to pick up from the ground.
8. It is admitted that the parking slot is common property to be used by all the members of the apartment and the plaintiff has sold half left side portion of the parking to the defendant no.2 and there is only a space of 15 sq. yards, which need to be used for the parking by the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and other residents but the plaintiff does not want the defendants to use the parking slot and hence it is the plaintiff who is obstructing the defendants from parking their vehicles in the parking slot. Plaintiff keeps goods and articles, so the defendants could not use the space as parking. There is no cause of action against the defendants. Replication CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 5 of 16 SUSHEE Digitally signed by SUSHEEL L BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:39:44 -07'00'
9. Plaintiff has filed the replication to the written statement of the defendant in which he has denied the contents of the written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint. Issues
10. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on 22.10.2018:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendant, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction against the defendant as prayed for? OPP
3. Relief Admission/Denial of documents
11. During admission/denial defendant no. 1 has admitted the following documents: -
a) Certificate of death of late Pyara Singh as Ex. P1.
b) Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit to GPA, receipt all dated 21.04.2009 as being documents not conveying the title but as the documents within the limited meaning of power of attorney governed by the concerned act as Ex. P2 to Ex. P5 (colly.)
c) Copy of agreement dated 16.08.2017 as Ex. P6.
d) Aadhar cards of plaintiff and his wife as Ex. P7 and Ex. P8.
e) Copy of collaboration agreement between Gurdev Singh and Hardev Singh as Ex. P9.
Plaintiff's Evidence
12. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 6 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:39:55 -07'00'
(i) Photocopy of ownership documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sale, Affidavit, Receipt as Ex. PW-1/1 (colly).
(ii) Family Will dated 21.04.2009 as Ex. PW-1/2.
(iii) Site plan as Ex. PW-1/3. (iv) Collaboration Agreement as Ex. PW-1/4. (v) Police complaint dated 17.10.2016 as Ex. PW-1/5. (vi) Six Photographs as Ex. PW-1/6.
After cross-examination, plaintiff evidence was closed.
Defendant's Evidence
13. In support of their defence, both the defendants got examined themselves as DW-1 and DW-2.
DW-1 is the defendant no.1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon the following documents: -
(i) Complaints to SHO as Ex. DW-1/2 and Ex. DW-1/3.
(ii) Letter to ACP as Ex. DW-1/4. (iii) Photographs as Ex. DW-1/5 (colly) (iv) Photocopy of caste certificate as Mark-A.
DW-2 is the defendant no.2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-2/A and relied upon the following documents: -
(i) Medical documents as Ex. DW-2/2 (colly). (ii) Photocopy of caste certificate as Mark-A.
After cross-examination, defendant evidence was closed.
Final Arguments
14. Final arguments as addressed by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Ld. Counsel for the defendants were heard. Ld. Counsels for both the CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 7 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:40:03 -07'00' parties have filed written synopsis of their arguments and have relied upon case laws in support of their contentions. Court Observations: -
15. In order to make out a case for grant of injunction, the plaintiff must demonstrate not only the existence of the right but also a threat of invasion of the said right. An injunction is granted only when the injury to the rights of plaintiff is reasonably expected. An injunction is not issued to restrain a person from doing that which he is not attempting or intending to do. Injunction therefore does not lie in absence of actual or presently threatened interference. It is not sufficient for issuance of injunction that the injury may possibly result from the act sought to be prevented. There must be at least a reasonable probability that the injury will be caused if no injunction is granted.
16. In the case of Sohan Singh v. Jhaman, (P&H) 1986 RRR 579, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed as under:
"In other words, there must be some overt act on the part of the defendant to invade or a threat to invade the plaintiff's right or commission of an act on the part of the defendant which is contrary to the plaintiff's rights. Except in so far as the above contingencies, no perpetual injunction could be granted against the defendant under the Act. "
17. Further it is settled principle of law that injunction cannot be granted merely to allay the fears and apprehensions of individuals. The mere fact that the injunction against the defendant would not cause any harm to her does not authorize its issuance. The injury to the rights of the plaintiff must be shown to be certain to occur if the defendant is not CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 8 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:40:12 -07'00' enjoined by way of injunction. If this ingredient is conspicuously absent, the plaintiff is not entitled to the grant of injunction against defendant. Findings
18. On the basis of pleadings, documents available on record and arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for both the parties, my issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendant, as prayed for? OPP
19. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the evidence by way of affidavit in order to prove his right over the suit property alongwith the common space in the suit property by way of documents of Ex. P2 to P5 which was also admitted by the defendants in the process of admission and denial of the documents. The defendants had admitted that they have purchased their respective floors in the suit property from the plaintiff. Only one of defendant i.e., defendant no. 2 had filed the documents of ownership executed between the defendants and plaintiff. The relevant portion of the GPA is quoted as under:
This General Power of Attorney is made and executed at Delhi on 30.10.2015 by S. Gurdev Singh son of Late S. Piara Singh Resident of :
H.No. A-103/B, Uday Vihar, Nilothi Extension, New Delhi -110041, hereinafter called the Executant(s) do hereby nominate and constitute and appoint (1) S. Jasbir Singh Kataria Son of S. Surjeet Singh Kataria & (2) Smt. Surinder Kaur Kataria Wife of S. Jasbir Singh Kataria Both Resident of : H.No. B-14, Block B, Uday Vihar, Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn., New Delhi -110041 (hereinafter called the General Attorney/s), as my true and lawful general power of attorney, to do the following acts, CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 9 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:40:21 -07'00' deeds and things for me in my name and on my behalf.
Whereas the Executants/s is /are the co-owner/ sole owner, occupier and in legally possession of Upper Second Floor without terrace/ roof rights, out of built up property bearing no. A-103-B (with left side one car and one bike parking space, stairs will be common mix & use with common rights to use of the roof over the water tank & T.V. Dish /anteena), Land measuring 70 sq. yards, pertaining to Khasra No.27/15, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Nilothi, Delhi State Delhi, and the colony known as Uday Vihar, Nilothi Extn., New Delhi- 110041.
20. The defendants in written statement had admitted that the parking lot is a common property to be used by all the members of the apartments. The defendants had only preferred to file single page of one General Power of Attorney, so alleged to be executed by Shri Gurdev Singh i.e. Plaintiff in favour of Shri Jasbir Singh Kataria and Smt. Surinder Kaur Kataria i.e. Defendant no. 2 and his wife, alongwith the written statement.
21. The Counsel for the defendants had shown the documents executed by the plaintiff in favour of Jasbir Singh i.e. Defendant no. 2 in the cross examination of plaintiff as PW1. The said documents are exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D8 (OSR) i.e., the General Power Attorney, agreement to sell and purchase, indemnity bond, Special Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession letter, Deed of Will, all the documents are notarized. However, it is apparent from such documents that the plaintiff had only sold the upper second floor without terrace / roof rights, out of built up property bearing no. A-103-B with left side CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 10 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:40:30 -07'00' one car and one bike parking space, stairs with common mixed and use with common rights and only access the roof for limited purpose for maintaining the water tank and TV dish antenna in the land measuring 70 sq. Yards, pertaining to khasra no. 27/15 situated in the revenue estate of village Nilothi Delhi, colony known as Uday Vihar, New Delhi-110041. Once the plaintiff had only sold the said upper second floor with mix and use of one car and one bike parking in a slot space i.e. a common space to Shri Jasbir Singh than the defendant no. 2 cannot claim his exclusive right and interest in the common space in the slot parking.
22. The defendant no. 1 Shri Mahender Singh has not filed or relied upon any documents of ownership therefore means the presumption of any right and interest in the common space in the suit property does not arise in favour of Shri Mahender Singh at all. The defendants have referred to the Collaboration Agreement exhibited by the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/4. The said agreement is also mentioned in Clause C of the Para 2 of the plaint / paragraph 3 of the evidence affidavit and reads as under;
"That the Second Party will be the actual owner of the remaining building Ground Floor one room set (area 30 square yards) without roof rights of the said property and upper second floor without roof rights of the said property with one scooter and one car parking on the ground floor and his legal heirs, successors, executors, administrators shall not raise any objection for the same, the Second Party shall have the absolute rights to sell, mortgage, gift, lease, exchange, hold dispose of etc. the portion of the building as he likes as his wish".
23. It is argued on behalf of the defendants that as per in Clause C in the said Collaboration Agreement, the plaintiff can neither claim any right CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 11 of 16 SUSHEE Digitally signed by SUSHEEL L BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:40:39 -07'00' over the Upper Second Floor nor can claim that the entire parking is common to every residents living in the entire property because, by virtue of operation of the terms, as mentioned in Clause C, the plaintiff has parted his ownership right to the builder or owner of the second floor alongwith the right of one scooter and car parking on the ground floor. Defendants have also referred to Clause D of the aforesaid agreement which states as follows "That the First Party execute the document of the ground floor one room set without roof rights and upper second floor without roof rights of the said property with one scooter and one car parking on the ground floor after the first lenter in the name of Second Party or his nominee". It is argued that the said Clause C and Clause D of the Collaboration Agreement must have been acted upon by the respective parties.
24. However, the above said collaboration agreement cannot be relied upon being an unregistered document. A collaboration agreement requires compulsory registration as per Section 17 r/w Section 49 of the Registration Act. Further, the defendants have themselves stated that the property was sold to them by the plaintiff and thus, it was not the builder to whom any right in the property was got transferred. Thus, from the own version of the defendants, the alleged terms and conditions of the alleged collaboration agreement were not adhered to.
25. Another contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff himself has admitted, in the para 4 and 7 onwards that entire parking lot is not common. It is alleged that plaintiff admits that the only the "left over"
portion on the ground floor is common, the line reads as, "I further state that left over portion on the ground floor is a parking slot and the same CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 12 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:40:48 -07'00' parking slot is not in exclusive possession and use of any of the occupant of the suit property". Hence it is argued that there is complete absence of common agreement among the residents of the property as to the common parking. It is argued that the plaintiff has not shown any photographs or any documentary evidence which shows the defendants are causing hindrance. It is stated that the plaintiff has cross examined the defendants but both the defendants have clearly stated that there are two gates one gate is not locked (open) and another is locked in order to prevent theft or for security reason and to prevent the entry of dogs etc.
26. On the other hand, the plaintiff has successfully proved the cause of action by way of proving the written complaints Ex. PW1/5. The plaintiff has further proved the photographs of the site i.e., the common space/ slot as Ex. PW1/6 (colly.) which clearly indicated that the defendants has occupied the common space/ slot in unauthorized manner by putting the locks on the main gate which is meant for ingress and egress for all occupants in the suit property. During cross-examination, DW1 admits that there are two gates, one in the front side and another one in the rear side. The witness was shown the photograph Ex. PW1/6 and he admits that all the occupants in the building use the gate at point C for ingress and egress. He further admitted that the lock and keys of the said gate remains in his possession. He further admits that the wording at point A and B written on the wall were written by him on his own and no permission of the plaintiff was ever obtained for the same. He further admits that the half portion of the stilt parking was never sold to him. DW2, who is defendant no. 2 in the present suit also admitted the fact that the parking slot is meant for common use and for ingress and egress for CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 13 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:40:57 -07'00' all the occupants of the suit property. The defendants had not given the keys of the lock put on the main entrance gate in the suit property.
27. The defendants failed to prove their case of any right, interest and title in the common space in the suit property or any right to create any hindrance or obstacles in ingress and egress in the common space/ slot or claim any exclusively right in said common space/ slot. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction seeking reliefs of restraining all the defendants and their associates from creating any obstacles and hindrance in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff and his family members in the common space/ parking slot in the suit property and / or further restraining the defendants from creating any hindrance and obstacles for using the common space / parking slot for the purpose meant for parking the vehicle in the suit property.
28. However, the further relief asked regarding restraining the defendants to forcibly break open the locks of the doors of the roof on the third floor of the suit property which is exclusively in the possession of the plaintiff is not made out as the plaintiff has failed to prove any breaking of locks by the defendants. There is no photograph to show any broken lock on the third floor. The plaintiff himself has admitted during cross-examination that there is no lock. Thus, this issue is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction against the defendant as prayed for? OPP
29. The plaintiff has prayed for mandatory injunction seeking directions against the defendants to immediately remove the unused articles which are creating hindrance, obstacles and nuisance for ingress CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 14 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:41:06 -07'00' and egress from the parking slot/ common space in the suit property and / or further direction to the defendants to immediately remove the embarking on the walls of the common space/ parking slot in the suit property permanently.
30. At the time of cross examination, the photographs Ex. PW1/6 (colly.) relied upon by the plaintiff was shown to DW1 on which he admits his writing at point A and B, written on the wall in his own handwriting. Similarly, DW2 admitted regarding the writing at point D and E written on the wall by him in the photograph Ex. PW1/6 (Colly.) shown to him during the cross-examination. He further admitted that he is exclusively using the left side parking of 17.5 sq. yards area in the stilt parking alleging himself as the owner of said half portion of stilt parking. But both the defendants failed to prove their exclusive right and title in the said stilt parking/ parking slot/ common space by way of any documentary evidence.
31. Perusal of the photographs also show that there are goods lying in the parking area, i.e., the parking area is being used for purposes other than parking. There is writing on the walls on both side walls. Thus, the plaintiff is able to show the obligation on the part of the defendants not to embark/engrave on the walls and not to place articles/goods in the common parking lot. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief:
32. In view of the above discussions, the plaintiff is entitled to following reliefs:
1. Decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 15 of 16 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2021.07.07 DAGAR 16:41:16 -07'00' thereby restraining the defendants and the persons claiming through them from creating any obstacles and hindrance in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff and his family members in the common space / parking slot in the suit property and further restrain the defendants from creating any hindrance and obstacle for using the common space/parking slot for the purposes meant for i.e. parking of vehicles etc.
2. Further, a decree of mandatory injunction is passed thereby directing the defendants and the persons claiming through them to immediately remove the unused articles which are creating hindrance, obstacles and nuisance for ingress and egress from the parking slot/common space in the suit property and further the defendants are directed to immediately remove the embarking on the wall of the common space/parking slot in the suit property.
33. Accordingly, with the grant of the above reliefs, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
SUSHEEL Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL BALA
BALA DAGAR
Date: 2021.07.07
DAGAR 16:41:26 -07'00'
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar)
on 07th Day of July 2021 SCJ cum RC (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 16 pages.)
CS SCJ No. 1235/17 Gurdev Singh v. Mahender Singh etc. Page No. 16 of 16