Delhi District Court
Urmila vs Savitri Devi And Anr on 19 April, 2024
1
URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV DAHIYA, CIVIL JUDGE-03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No :- 546/2019
Date of Institution : 08.05.2019
Date of Decision : 19.04.2024
Urmila
W/o Sh. Tulsi Prasad
R/o H.no. G-4/63,
Sunder Nagri,
Delhi-93 ..............Plaintiff.
Versus
1.Savitri Devi W/o Late Sh. Tejpal Singh
2. Yogesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Tejpal Singh Both R/o Jhuggi No. E-57/D-467, In front H.no. G-4/63, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-93 Also at- Jhuggi No. E-57/A-468, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-93.
.............Defendants
Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
2
URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR
SUIT FOR PREMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their legal heirs, agents, etc., from selling, alienating, creating any third party interest in the property bearing no. E-57/D-467, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-93 (hereinafter called as 'the suit property'); decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the suit property and to award damages/mesne profits of Rs.200/- per day for the unauthorized use of the suit property from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of possession and to award the cost of the suit or any other relief as deemed fit by the court.
CASE OF PLAINTIFF :-
2. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that defendant no.1 is the sister-in-law (Jethani), defendant no.2 is the nephew of the plaintiff and son of defendant no.1. That plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. That defendants also have their own premises bearing no. E-57/A-468, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-93. That on 20.12.2012, defendants being the sister in law and nephew of the plaintiff, requested the plaintiff to allow them to reside in the suit property as permissive user till 10.03.2013 because defendants did not have enough space in their premises on account of marriage of defendant no.2. That plaintiff allowed the defendants to reside in the suit property with the condition to vacate the same on Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 3 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR 14.03.2013 That on 14.03.2013, plaintiff orally extended the time period of the defendant to reside in the suit property considering their financial difficulty and lack of space. That plaintiff extended the time period with the condition to handover the vacant possession as and when directed to do so. That plaintiff also got installed electricity meter in her own name in the suit property for the convenience of the defendants. That defendants used to regularly pay the electricity charges till August 2018, however, stopped paying the same after that. That despite request of the plaintiff, defendant were chronic defaulter in making the payments of electricity bill. That being left with no other option, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 24.01.2019 calling upon the defendants to pay the outstanding arrears of electricity charges from September 2018 till date along with interest @ 24% p.a. to plaintiff and to handover the vacant peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. That plaintiff has no other legal efficacious remedy than to file the present suit.
CASE OF DEFENDANT :-
3. Upon summons being issued, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their joint WS and preliminary objections were taken stating that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and has created a false and concocted story. It is stated that plaintiff had not adduced any documentary proof to show herself as the owner of the suit property. That plaintiff is not the absolute Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 4 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR owner of the suit property and same was alloted to Sh. Bhagwati Prasad S/o Sh.
Girwar Dayal (elder brother of plaintiff's husband, Shri Tulsi Prasad and brother in law of defendant no.1) by virtue of allotment no. 243718 issued by Delhi Administration on 06.03.1990 and that Bhagwati Prasad never sold the suit property to anybody. That Sh. Bhagwati Parsad allowed the defendants to reside in the suit property as licensee and he is the actual allottee. That plaintiff fraudulently took the electricity connection in her name without having any title in the suit property. That on 24.08.2019, Bhagwati Prasad also got lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and her husband in PS Nand Nagri for forgery and cheating. In reply on merits, contents of para 1 and 2 are stated to be matter of record. All the other averments of the plaint are denied in toto and it is prayed that suit may be dismissed with cost.
REPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF:-
4. Plaintiff filed his replication to the WS of the defendants. It is stated that the allotment card no. 243718 dated 06.03.1990 is a false and manipulated document and same was never issued by Delhi Administration. It is further stated that Bhagwati Prasad is not the owner of the suit property but he is the owner of another Jhuggi bearing no. E-57/A-467, Sunder Nagri, Delhi. All the averments of the plaint are reiterated and allegations of WS are denied.
Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
5
URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR
ISSUES :-
5. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed vide order dt.
17.11.2022:-
1. Whether the suit property was alloted to One Bhagwati Prasad, brother in law of plaintiff, by allotement card no.249718 issued by Delhi Administration dated 06.03.1990? (OPD)
2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by way of sale agreement executed by her mother in law in her favor? (OPP)
3. Whether the defendants are the licencee in the suit property? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for evictionof defendants from the suit property by way of madatory injunction? (OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for? (OPP)
6. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
6. To prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself and stepped into the witness box as PW1 by tendering her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and also tendered some documents including:-
1. Voter card of deponent Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
6
URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR
2. Adhaar card of deceased Sona Devi Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Voter card of deceased Sona Devi Ex. PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Death Certificate of Sona Devi Ex. PW1/4 (OSR)
5. Sale agreement dated 11.09.2012 Ex. PW1/5 (OSR).
6. Receipt dated 11.09.2012 Ex. PW1/6 (OSR).
7. Possession letter dated 11.09.2012 Ex. PW1/7 (OSR).
8. Electricity bill dated 12.02.2019 Ex. PW1/8 (OSR).
9. Agreement/mutual consent deed dated 20.12.2012 Ex. PW1/9 (OSR).
10. Legal notice dated 24.01.2019 Ex.PW1/10.
11. Postal receipt Ex.PW1/11 (colly)
12. Return envelope with endorsement report Ex.PW1/12.
13. Net generated track reports Ex.PW1/13 (colly)
14. Site plan Ex.PW1/14.
Again, one neighbor of the plaintiff namely Rajan was examined as PW2 who tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.PW2/A and relied upon the documents already tendered as Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/7 and another neighbour namely Daya Ram was examined as PW3, who tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.PW3/A and also relied upon one document already Ex.PW1/9. All the three witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld LAC for defendant and thereafter the PE was closed on 07.07.2023 vide separate statement of the plaintiff.
Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
7
URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:-
7. To prove her case, defendant examined herself and stepped into the witness box as DW1, tendering her affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and has relied upon following documents:-
1. Copy of allotment card in the name of Sh. Bhagwati Prasad vide card no. 342718 is Ex.DW1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of adhaar card of Sh. Bhagwati Prasad is Mark DW1/2.
3. Copy of police complaint dated 24.08.2019 is Ex.DW1/3 (same is mentioned in the affidavit as Mark DW1/3).
Another witness namely Chander Wati was examined as DW2, who tendered her affidavit as Ex.DW2/A. Again, one summoned witness namely Paras Nath from Office of DUSIB, East Zone, Seelampur was examined as DW3. All the witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for plaintiff and thereafter DE was closed vide statement of Ld LAC on 22.09.2023.
8. The rival contentions raised by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff and defendant have been heard and the material available on record as well the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties have been carefully and minutely perused. My issue wise findings with reasons thereof are as under :-
Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
8
URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR
ISSUE NO. 1 :-
9. It is to observe that as per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, the fact asserted by a person has to be proved by the same person. Again, as per Section 102 of IEA, the burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In the present case, considering the fact that the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants were inducted as permissive users in the suit property by her, therefore, the general burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.
10. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants and the plaintiff has claimed herself as the owner of the property and defendants as licensee in the property. By way of mandatory injunction the plaintiff has prayed that the defendants be directed to vacate the suit property bearing no. E-57/D-467 and handover the possession to the plaintiff as she has already terminated their license by way of legal notice dated 24.01.2019 and she no longer wants the defendants to continue as permissive users in the suit property. To this, the defendants have taken a stand that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit property and infact the property was alloted to Sh. Bhagwati Prasad (who is also the elder brother of plaintiff's husband and brother in law of defendant no.1 and uncle of defendant no.2) and that he had allowed the defendants to reside in the said property. This fact was asserted by the defendants and therefore while framing the issue the onus to prove this fact was placed on the defendants.
Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
9
URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR
11. To prove the fact that the suit property i.e.E-57/D-467 was alloted to one Bhagwati Parsad by allotment card no. 243718 issued by Delhi Administration dated 06.03.1990, the defendant no.1 examined herself as DW1 tendering her affidavit as Ex.DW1/A, her sister-in-law Smt. Chanderwati (wife of Bhagwati Parsad) as DW2, tendering her affidavit as Ex.DW2/A and Sh. Paras Nath, witness from Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (hereinafter called as DUSIB) as DW3, whose statement was recorded in the court. In her evidence affidavit, DW1 has reiterated the stand taken in the WS and has deposed that the plaintiff does not have any title over the suit property which was infact alloted to Sh. Bhagwati Parsad by virtue of allotment card vide card no. 243718 issued by Delhi Administration on 06.03.1990. She has exhibited the said allotment card as Ex.DW1/1. DW2 has also supported the version of DW1 in her evidence affidavit.
12. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During her cross-examination, DW1 has deposed that there are four blocks in Sunder Nagri Slum i.e. E-57/A to E-57/D and that she shifted to the suit property after marriage of her son i.e. defendant no.2. She has admitted that the meter connection in the suit property is in the name of the plaintiff. She has also deposed that if the plaintiff allows her to construct first floor on another property i.e. G-4/63, Sunder Nagri, then she shall vacate the suit property. She has also admitted her thumb impression on the general agreement/iqrarnama Ex.PW1/9 at point A and signature of her son at point B. During her cross-examination, DW2 Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 10 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR has also admitted that the electricity connection in the suit property is in the name of the plaintiff and has further deposed that except document Ex.DW1/1 i.e. allotment card in favor of her husband, she has no other document to show that the suit property belongs to her husband. She has also deposed that she has not filed any case till date against the plaintiff even when the plaintiff has claimed the suit property as her own. Further in his statement, the witness from DUSIB examined as DW3 has deposed that as per his knowledge, no allotment of land was ever made by the Govt of NCT of Delhi in the slum area where suit property is situated and that once only a survey was conducted by the Central Government. No witness was examined by defense to prove the survey by Rehabilitation Department of DUSIB.
13. It is to observe that on the document Ex.DW1/1, the address mentioned is A-467, Sunder Nagri whereas, the address of the suit property is E-57/D-467, Sunder Nagri. It has been argued by counsel for defendants and has been deposed by DW2 in her evidence affidavit that in 1990, suit property was known as E- 57/A-467, however, no documentary proof has been produced by the defendants in support of said contention. Infact DW1 has deposed during her cross examination that there are four blocks in the Sunder Nagri Slum Area i.e. E-57/A to E-57/D. No witness has been produced and infact no record has been summoned from the concerned departments of either the Delhi Government or the Central Government to prove that the suit property was actually alloted to Sh. Bhagwati Prasad and also that the address E-57/A-467 was subsequently got Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 11 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR changed to E-57/D-467. Furthermore on the one hand, the defendants have claimed that the suit property was actually alloted to Sh. Bhagwati Prasad and that they came into possession through him, on the other hand, during their examination under Order X, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 have categorically stated that the suit property was owned by Smt. Sona Devi, who was mother in law of plaintiff and defendant no.1 and grand mother of defendant no.2. From this fact also an inference can be drawn that the suit property was actually owned/alloted to Smt. Sona Devi and due to the observations made above, this court is of the view that the defendants have failed to discharge their onus of proving that the suit property was alloted to one Bhagwati Prasad and accordingly, issue no.1 is decided against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2:-
14. It is to observe that the suit property is a Jhuggi situated in the slum area of Sunder Nagri and plaintiff and defendants have made contrary claims about its allotment from Government. It is a settled position that the slums presently under the DUSIB of the Delhi Government were alloted for rehabilitation purposes and surveys are conducted time and again by the Government to ascertain the possession for extending benefits. No ownership gets vested in any allottee merely by the allotment of a slum/jhuggi. This fact has also been admitted by witness from DUSIB during his cross-examination by counsel for plaintiff. Thus, when no ownership gets vested in the original allottee then no question for transfer of ownership by way of sale agreement in favor of any other person Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 12 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR arises. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided against the plaintiff as she cannot claim ownership in the suit property in a strict sense.
ISSUE NO.3 and 4:-
15. Both the issues are connected and are being taken together.
16. To prove the fact that the defendants are licensee in the suit property, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1, tendering her evidence affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. In her evidence affidavit, she has reiterated all her averments made in the plaint and has deposed that the suit property was originally allotted to her mother in law Late Smt. Sona Devi and was transferred in her name on the basis of sale agreement dated 11.09.2012. She has also deposed that after the marriage of son of defendant no.1, the defendants were allowed to reside in the suit property as permissive user and agreement/mutual consent deed/iqrarnama dated 20.12.2012 was also executed between the parties. Further, when the defendants were facing problem of electricity, she also got installed electricity connection in her name in the suit property but the defendants turned out to be chronic defaulters in making of payments of electricity bills and hence she terminated their permissive occupancy in the suit property by legal notice dated 24.01.2019.
17. Plaintiff also got examined one Sh. Rajan as PW2 to prove the sale agreement dated 11.09.2012, who deposed that the said document accompanied with receipt of payment and possession letter were executed in his presence Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 13 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR wherein he stood as a witness. He has further deposed that the plaintiff was in the actual physical possession of the suit property when she allowed the defendants to reside in the suit property as permissive users. To prove the agreement/mutual consent deed/iqrarnama dated 20.12.2012, the plaintiff got examined one Sh. Daya Ram as PW3, who deposed that the said document was executed in his presence wherein he stood as a witness.
18. It is to observe that though this court has decided in the preceeding paragraphs that no ownership can be claimed in the suit property, however the sale agreement Ex.PW1/5, receipt Ex.PW1/6, possession letter Ex.PW1/7, electricity bill Ex.PW1/8 and agreement/mutal consent deed/iqrarnama Ex.PW1/9 are necessary to be looked into to decide the prior possession of the plaintiff and subsequent permissive usership of the defendants in the suit property.
19. PW1 i.e. the plaintiff has deposed that the ownership of the suit property was trasferred in her name by her mother in law by document Ex.PW1/5 and in the same sequence, after receiving payment as reflected in document Ex.PW1/6, the possession was handed over to her by document Ex.PW1/7. Plaintiff has also relied on document Ex.PW1/2 i.e. adhaar card of late Smt. Sona Devi, Ex.PW1/3 i.e. identity card of Sona Devi issued by Election Commission of India, Ex.PW1/4 i.e death certificate of Sona Devi wherein address of Sona Devi is reflected as E-57/D-467. She has proved these documents to show the possession of the deceased Sona Devi in the suit property and to establish her case that possession was derived by her from Sona Devi. She has further relied on Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 14 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR document Ex.PW1/9 i.e. general agreement/mutual consent deed/iqrarnama dated 20.12.2012 wherein the defendants have stated that they have no right or title in Jhuggi no. E-57/D-467 i.e. the suit property and that suit property belongs to plaintiff and further that they are residing in the suit property till 10.03.2013 undertaking to vacate the same on 14.03.2013. To prove document Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7, the plaintiff has examined one witness namely Rajan as PW2, who has proved the execution of the documents and has identified his signatures on the said documents. Further, to prove document Ex.PW1/9, the plaintiff has examined a witness namely Daya Ram as PW3 who has proved the execution of the general agreement/mutual consent/iqrarnama dated 20.12.2012 and has identified his signatures on the said documents.
20. All the witnesses were cross examined at length by ld counsel for defendant. PW1 has denied the suggestion that late Smt. Sona Devi was not the original allottee of the suit property and nothing substantial came out of her cross- examination. PW2 has deposed that he knew defendant no.1 being his neighbour and he has very categorically deposed in his cross-examination that the previous owner of the suit property was Smt. Sona Devi who had transferred the same to the plaintiff. Both PW1 and PW2 have also deposed that document Ex.PW1/5 was prepared in Karkardooma Court, Delhi. Again, his testimony has remained substantially reliable even after cross examination. Furthermore, PW3 has also deposed that he had been residing in the same locality and plaintiff is his neighbour. He has identified the signature of the defendant on document Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 15 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR Ex.PW1/9 by reading the name of the defendant and has very categorically deposed that the document was exhibited in his presence and that defendant no.2 had put his name on the document in his presence only. His testimony also remained intact.
21. Further, defendant during her cross-examination has admitted that the meter connection in the suit property was installed in the name of plaintiff and the bill of the said connection has already been exhibited by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/8 from which it is clear that it was installed in the year 2014 as averred by the plaintiff. Thus the said bill also stands proved fortifying the fact that the plaintiff was in prior possession on the basis of which electricity meter was installed. Moreover during her cross-examination, the defendant has admitted her thumb impression and signatures of her son at document Ex.PW1/9 i.e.general agreement/mutual consent deed/iqrarnama dated 20.12.2012. The defendant has also deposed during her cross-examination that if the plaintif allows her to contrust first floor at G-4/63, then she shall vacate the suit property and from this it can be inferred that she is constructively admitting prior possession of the plaintiff and her permissive usership of the suit property. DW2 has also admitted the installation of the electricity meter in the suit property in the name of the plaintiff and has also deposed that she has not filed any case against the plaintiff while the plaintiff is claiming the suit property as her own. Again, a inference may be drawn that the plaintiff was having prior possession in the property. Though the defendants have taken a stand that the electricity connection was Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 16 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR taken by the plaintiff on the basis of forged and false documents and that a police complaint dated 24.08.2019 was also made by Bhagwati Prasad against the plaintiff however, this does not inspire the confidence of the court as the meter was admittedy got installed in the year 2014 and surpirisingly, no complaint was made for more than 05 years. Even otherwise DW2, the wife of defendant has admitted that they have not filed any case against the plaintiff even when she has claimed her ownership in the suit property and it is not understandable why they have not done so when someone is trying to illegaly capture their property as any reasonable person is expected to do so in such circumstances.
22. It is to observe that from the documentary and oral testimony discussed above, documents Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/9 stand proved and on the basis of these documents it may be safely concluded that the plaintiff was in actual physical possession of the suit property when the defendants were inducted as permissive users in the same. Further as per the case of the plaintiff when she realized that the defendant was habitual defaulter in clearing her electricity arrears, she terminated the license of the defendants by way of legal notice dated 24.01.2019. The legal notice is Ex.PW1/10. Though the notice cannot be deemed to be properly served on the defendants in view of the averment made in the plaint that the notice was received back with remarks 'address not found', however, service of the summons of the suit including the copy of plaint and all the documents is sufficient for the purpose of termination of license from the date of service thereby implying that the defendants became Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya) CIVIL JUDGE 03, SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI 17 URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR the unauthorized occupants in the suit property and are under obligation to handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff.
23. It is to further observe that the plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the suit property claiming the defendants being licensee. In this regard the reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the law with respect to the eviction of licensee from a property was discussed at length in 'Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avtar Singh 1985 AIR 857', wherein it was held that after termination of the license, the licensee is under clear obligation to surrender his possession to the owner and he fails to do so, there was no reason why the licensee cannot be compelled to discharge this obligation by way of a mandatory injunction under the provision of SRA. The said legal position was reiterated and discussed at length again by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Maria Margadia Sequeria Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria dated 21.03.2012' and it was categorically held that none acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades, such person would not acquire any rights or interest in the said property.
24. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and observation made above, issue no.3 and 4 are decided in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
18
URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR
ISSUE NO. 5
25. From the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, the defendant has failed to prove that the suit property was actually allotted to one Bhagwati Prasad and she was inducted in the property by him. Rather the plaintiff has been able to prove that she derived her possession from her mother in law late Smt. Sona Devi and admitted the defendants as licensee/permissive users in the suit property. Thus the defendants having no title or interest in the suit property have no right to create any third party interest in the suit property and accordingly, issue no.5 is also decided in favor of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 6 RELIEF :-
26. In view of findings of all the above issues, it is concluded that the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed to the effect that:-
i) The defendants are hereby directed to vacate the suit premises and to handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within 01 month from the date of decree;
ii) The defendant/their servants/ representatives etc are permanently restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property or to handover the possession of the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff;
Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI
19
URMILA VS. SAVITRI DEVI & ANR
iii) Further, the slums where suit property is situated are alloted for
rehabilitation purposes and in the considered opinion of the court, cannot be used by any person for rent purposes and accordingly, this court is not inclined to award any mesne profits in favor of the plaintiff.
27. Suit is hereby decreed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court:
Dated: 19.04.2024 (Gaurav Dahiya)
Civil Judge-03
Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi
Note :- This Judgment contains 19 pages and all the pages have been
checked and signed by me.
(Gaurav Dahiya)
Civil Judge-03
Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi
19.04.2024
Civil Suit No: 546/2019 (Gaurav Dahiya)
CIVIL JUDGE 03,
SHAHDARA, KKD COURTS, DELHI