Delhi District Court
Jogmohan Singh vs Gaurav Verma on 25 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TANVI KHURANA,CIVIL JUDGE1(South)
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
In the Matter of
Civil Suit No.667/14
Case ID No. 02406C0314782010
Jogmohan Singh
S/o Sh. Trilok Singh
R/o A51, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi. .........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Gaurav Verma
S/o Sh. Ashiender Verma
R/o A51, Second Floor,
New Friends Colony,
New Delhi.
2. Mrs. Nandini Maliah,
W/o Sh. B. D. Maliah
R/o A51, First Floor,
New Friends Colony,
New Delhi. .........Defendants
Date of Institution :05.10.2010/07.02.2014
Date of Reserving the judgment :19.02.2015
Date of Pronouncement :25.02.2015
Decision :Decreed.
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTION
Present: None.
Suit No.667/13
Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT:
The present suit has been filed seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant no.1 and 2 from disturbing and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever in the free egress and ingress to terrace/roof top through staircase constructed in the building and further from disturbing and/or interfering in any manner by disturbing or encroaching constructed concrete water tank at the terrace falling in the part in defendant's shares in building premises.
In addition to the perpetual injunction, plaintiff has also sought mandatory injunction directing defendant no. 1 and 2 to renovate and/or reconnect the damaged concrete water tanks constructed on the terrace for uninterrupted water supply.
Plaintiff's version as per plaint:
2. Succinctly, the plaintiff has averred himself to be the absolute owner inpossession of the basement, ground floor with garage and servant quarter of Plot No.51 A, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. It is averred that the plaintiff has easementary right of staircase for accessing of roof and of water supply from the water tank fixed at the terrace of the building. It is mentioned that defendant no. 1 and 2 are owners of the second floor of the same premises.
3. Plaintiff traced the history of his title from his father Late Sh. Trilok Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 2 of 21 Singh who had acquired the residential plot admeasuring 492 Sq. Yards through registered perpetual lease deed dated 12.01.1976. The property was subsequently converted into free hold and house comprising of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor along with garage and servant quarter was constructed by his father.
4. It is further averred that in 1982, father of the plaintiff orally partitioned the dwelling house into two portion whereby half portion of the dwelling house i.e. first floor and second floor were gifted to Late Sh.
Inderpal Singh (brother of the plaintiff) vide registered gift deed dated 11.01.1982 and remaining portion i.e. basement, ground floor, garage and servant quarter above the garage at the first level, right to access the terrace on the top floor remained with Sh. Trilok Singh which was subsequently owned and possessed by plaintiff.
5. It is stated that plaintiff and his wife have been residing in the property since 1976 and have enjoyed ingress and egress in respect of the staircase and uninterrupted supply of water and storage in concrete water tank.
6. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 started constructing on the terrace in March 2008. Plaintiff had immediately informed about the construction to the authorities and written complaint was lodged on 11.03.2008 with Commissioner, MCD. The unauthorised Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 3 of 21 construction was thereafter demolished but defendant no. 1 again started illegal construction on the second floor after an year or so. Complaints were again lodged but authorities did not take any action. It was alleged that defendant also broke the permanent concrete water tank situated at the terrace. Similarly, defendant no.2 also started renovating water tanks situated on her part of the property from where plaintiff received water supply. The concrete water tank constructed above servant quarter located in the part of the defendant no. 2 was also dismantled. It is further alleged that defendant no.1 has constructed permanent barricade in staircase restricting plaintiff's right to access the terrace. Being aggrieved from above, plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking perpetual and mandatory injunction.
Defendant's version as per written statement:
Defendant no. 1:
7. Defendant no. 1 filed written statement raising preliminary objection against maintainability of the present suit on the ground that there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff did not have any right/ title in the suit property. The possession of the plaintiff was alleged to be illegal and it was contended that injunction can not be granted against true owner at the instance of the plaintiff who is in unlawful occupation. It was also submitted that suit is barred by Section 41 (i) of Specific Relief Act, Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 4 of 21 1963 as plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. It was submitted that plaintiff has concealed the fact of execution of registered sale deed dated 11.04.2005 with respect to the suit property comprising of basement and ground floor in favour of the wife of the defendant no. 1 namely Mrs. Shipra Verma. It was also submitted that father of the plaintiff had executed a registered Will dated 29.10.2002 wherein ground floor and basement with garage and one servant quarter in the property was bequeathed to Mr. Sanjit Pal Singh and Mr. Manit Pal Singh who had sold the property to the wife of the defendant. It was also contended that there is no water tank installed on the terrace and there is no construction going on at the terrace so as to hinder the rights of the plaintiff. It is the defence of the defendant no. 1 that defendant no. 1 had purchased the entire second floor with terrace above the second floor and sky rights vide sale deed dated 23.05.2002 and has been in exclusive possession of the property. Defendant no.1 had also purchased the basement, ground floor in the name of his wife vide sale deed dated 11.04.2005.
8. It is also contended that plaintiff is getting ample water supply from the water tank installed on the ground floor wherein water from DJB is supplied regularly. It was counter alleged that plaintiff has disconnected the water connection of the defendant from the said water tank installed at the ground floor. Any water tank of the plaintiff at the terrace was denied. It Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 5 of 21 was also contended that suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant no. 1 and nonjoinder of Mrs. Shipra Verma.
9. On merits, contents of the plaint were denied. It was also submitted that on 12.01.1976, Late Sh. Inderpal Singh had purchased the property bearing plot no. 51, Block A, admeasuring 492 Sq. Yards through his father situated at village Taimboor Nagar, Khizrabad, Jogabai, Kilokari which is now called as New Friends Colony and majority of consideration amount was paid by Sh. Inderpal Singh. As the property was purchased by Sh. Inderpal Singh therefore his father decided to give the entire property to his son but he insisted in keeping only the half share of the property and thereafter on 11.01.1982, Sh. Trilok Singh executed a gift deed in favour of the Sh. Inderpal Singh. It is alleged that plaintiff fraudulently got the Will, and GPA both dated 17.04.2001 in his favour from his father and on 29.10.2002 when his father came to know about the above document he immediately cancelled and revoked the Will and GPA vide deed of cancellation dated 29.10.2002. A registered gift deed dated 05.05.2004 was executed by Sh. Trilok Singh in favour of his grand sons namely Sh. Sanjitpal Singh and Sh. Manitpal Singh sons of Sh. Inderpal Singh. Thereafter the grand sons of Sh. Trilok Singh had executed a registered sale deed dated 11.04.2005 in favour of Mrs. Shipra Verma. At the time of execution of sale deed, Sh. Manitpal Singh was minor and therefore Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 6 of 21 permission was sought and vide judgment dated 05.03.2005, Hon'ble District Judge had granted permission to sell the property of the minor for welfare of the minor. Therefore, it is contended that plaintiff does not have any right or title over the property.
10. It was also contended that in 1976, property was vacant plot without any structure therefore question of easement, water tank and terrace did not arise in 1976 and further plaintiff had gone to Canada after his marriage has not stayed at the property in question. It was further submitted that Mr. Inderpal Singh had shifted to the suit property in 1981. Mr. Trilok Singh at that time was living in Utter Pradesh and entire house was constructed by Mr. Inderpal Singh. It was submitted that after returning from Canada, plaintiff resided with defendant no. 1 in Uttar Pradesh.
11. The written complaint against alleged illegal construction were denied. It was further denied that any concrete water tank was broken. Any connivance with defendant no. 2 was also denied. It was prayed that suit be dismissed.
Defendant no. 2:
12. Defendant no. 2 also filed written statement questioning the maintainability of the plaint on the ground of locus standi. It was submitted that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought due to concealment of facts. It was counter alleged that plaintiff had stopped defendant no. 2 from Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 7 of 21 parking her car in the driveway inside the building, use of water storage tank and independent use of entry to servant quarter on the second floor at the garage block. It was contended that as per registered sale deed executed by Sh. Inderpal Singh, defendant was the exclusive owner of the entire first floor, one servant quarter of the second floor with terrace right above the garage block, one car parking in driveway inside the building and independent right over under ground water tank for MCD water supply pumping set to pump the water to kitchen etc. It was submitted that defendant no. 2 had installed a separate water tank of 300 ltrs on the top of the servant quarter block roof. Sh. Trilok Singh had requested her to install a similar water tank of 250 ltrs on the servant quarter block in order to cater to the requirement of servant quarter. It was mentioned that the servant quarter in occupation of Sh. Trilok Singh was lying vacant for five years and over head tank was lying broken and the water seepage had caused damages to the roof which the plaintiff refused to repair. On merits, the contents of the plaint were denied. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. Replication:
13. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by both the defendant. Through replication, the plaintiff maintained his suit and its maintainability. It was submitted that plaintiff has right, title and interest in the property and that property built by Late Sh. Trilok Singh. The alleged Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 8 of 21 sale deed dated 11.04.2005 in favour of the Ms. Shipra Verma and Will dated 29.10.2002 executed by Late Sh. Trilok Singh were stated to be forged documents. It was submitted that Late Sh. Trilok Singh had executed a Will dated 27.02.2006 in favour of the plaintiff which was his last and final Will. Rest of the contentions were vehemently denied. Rather it was submitted that Late Sh. Inderpal Singh got signatures of Late Sh. Trilok Singh on some blank papers which was subsequently used to manufacture the deed of cancellation of Will dated 29.10.2002 and deed cancellation of GPA. It was also submitted that plaintiff has been residing in the property with his father and mother though he had gone for a short while out of the country to earn money. He admitting visiting to Kolkata and other places for business but mentioned that he always took care his father and mother. The contents of the plaint were reaffirmed.
Identification of issues:
14. Admission/ denial of the documents was not conducted. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 06.05.2011.
Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff has a locus to file the present suit? OPP Issue no. 2 Whether the defendant no. 1 is exclusive owner of terrace floor by virtue of a sale deed executed in the year 2002?OPD Issue no. 3 Whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment and misrepresentation of facts? Onus to prove the defendants?OPD Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 9 of 21 Issue no. 4 Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the necessary parties?OPD1 Issue no. 5 Whether the terrace is meant for common use?OPP and OPD2 Issue no. 6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief for permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (a)?OPP Issue no. 7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief for permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (b)?OPP Issue no. 8 Relief.
15. In order to establish his case, plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW1. The following documents were relied upon in his examination.
S. No. Exhibit / Mark Nature of Document
1 Ex. PW1/2 Photograph
2 Ex. PW1/6 Complaints
3 Mark A Site plan
4 Mark B Electricity bills
5 Mark C Telephone bills
6 Mark D Water bills
16. It is pertinent to note that none of the documents bear endorsements of Exhibits of Marks numbers.
17. The witness was cross examined by senior counsel engaged by defendant no.1 on three dates of hearing. Document Mark D/PW1, sale deed dated 23.05.2002 was put to the witness during cross examination. Thereafter right to cross examine the plaintiff was closed by order of Ld. Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 10 of 21 Predecessor on 05.02.2013.
18. Affidavit of DW1 was filed. However, evidence was not led and vide order dated 27.07.2013, Ld. Predecessor had closed the right of defendant no. 1 to lead evidence in this matter. Vide order dated 31.08.2013 to lead evidence by defendant no. 2 was also closed by Ld. Predecessor.
19. It is pertinent to mention that defendant no.1 had filed application for recalling the order dated 26.07.2013 which was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/. This cost was not paid despite four effective opportunities and additional cost of Rs. 1500/ was imposed subject to last and final opportunity. Additional cost of Rs. 1000/ was again imposed upon the defendant no. 1 on 05.09.2014 for not paying cost and not leading evidence. Despite all the deterrent actions, neither evidence was led nor defendant no. 1 paid costs.
20. This is entire evidence produced by both the parties in this matter.
21. It is pertinent to mention that Local Commissioner was appointed in this matter vide order dated 08.10.2010 by the Ld. Predecessor who had filed her report which is placed on record but Local Commissioner was not called by any of the parties to lead evidence.
Arguments:
22. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 that access of staircase is required for the water tank on the roof/ terrace. He further Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 11 of 21 argued that plaintiff is in possession of the ground floor and basement which is main admitted fact. Though title of plaintiff has been challenged but possession has been admitted and separate litigation on the question of title is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. He further argued that concrete water tank has been installed at the roof which was dismantled by the defendants. He further argued that plaintiff has established his case therefore suit be decreed in his favour.
23. Opportunity was given to defendant no.1 and 2 to file written submissions as well as arguing the matter. However, despite opportunities, none appeared for defendants to argue the matter. Till date written submissions have not been filed.
24. I have heard the submissions advanced by Sh. S. K.Mishra, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and I have also perused the case record meticulously. My issue wise findings are as below:
Issue no. 1:
Whether the plaintiff has a locus to file the present suit?
25. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Though this objection was raised by way of written statement. However, Ld. Predecessor had put onus upon the plaintiff to show that he has locus to file the present suit. Plaintiff has not led any specific evidence to prove that he has locus to file present suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that property belonged to his father and after the demise of his father he has been in Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 12 of 21 possession and ownership of the suit premises more specifically basement and ground floor of plot no. 51A, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The question of ownership of this property is already under the scanner before Hon'ble High Court as defendant no. 1 has claimed that his wife to be the owner of the basement and ground floor vide registered sale deed which is placed on record. However it can not be forgotten that present suit is suit for simplicitor for injunction and therefore this court does not deem it appropriate to delve into the title of the parties.
26. Further vide order dated 06.05.2011 while framing of issues, Ld. Predecessor had already mentioned that probate proceedings and civil suit is pending which have been filed by plaintiff whereas another civil suit is also subjudice which was filed by wife of defendant no. 1. Therefore, dispute qua the title to the parties over the ground floor and basement of the suit property need not be gone in there proceedings.
27. It is the case of the parties that plaintiff is in possession over the property thought it is denied that the plaintiff has been in possession since 1987. It was contended that the plaintiff lived in Canada and Kolkata. Therefore, he has not been in possession over the property during that period but at the same time, the possession of the plaintiff as on date of filing of the suit has not been denied. Without commenting upon the title of the plaintiff, it can be observed that the plaintiff is in possession of the Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 13 of 21 property. The question before this court is relief of injunction. For seeking the relief of injunction, the plaintiff has locus to file the present suit. Therefore this issue is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 2:
Whether the defendant no. 1 is exclusive owner of terrace floor by virtue of a sale deed executed in the year 2002?
28. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant as defendant has claimed that defendant no. 1 as the exclusive owner of the terrace floor by virtue of a sale deed executed in the year 2002. However, this court can observe that by this issue court would be indirectly deciding ownership of the defendant no. 1. over the terrace floor. It can not be done in a suit for simplicitor injunction. The question of title of any of the parties can not be decided in this suit. Therefore, this court deem it appropriate to strike of this issue as question of title should not be decided in suit for simplicitor for injunction.
Issue no. 3:
Whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment and misrepresentation of facts? Onus to prove the defendants?
29. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant as it is the case of the defendant that plaintiff is guilty of suppression and misrepresentation of facts. The onus was upon the defendants. Both defendants have put forth contrary submissions about the water bank. Defendant no. 1 claims that there is no water tank belonging to the plaintiff on the terrace whereas Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 14 of 21 defendant no. 2 has submitted about common water tank on the terrace.
30. Be that as it may, defendants have not led any evidence to establish any concealment or misrepresentation of facts hence, this issues is decided against the defendants.
Issue no. 4:
Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the necessary parties?
31. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 1. The main ground behind this issue was that wife of the defendant was not impleaded as a defendant in this matter though the wife of defendant no.1 has purchased the basement and ground floor which claimed by the plaintiff to be his. At this juncture, it is important again to bring the fact to the light that the ownership dispute is already pending before the Hon'ble High Court and matter is subjudice therefore this court need not delve into the aspect that whether plaintiff or wife of the defendant who is owner of the basement and ground floor of the premises at Plot No. 51A, New Friends Colony, New Delhi as this court can not comment upon the ownership it can not be observed that that wife of defendant is a necessary party. Hence this issue is decided against defendant no.1.
Issue no. 5:
Whether the terrace is meant for common use?
32. The onus to prove this issue was upon both the plaintiff as well as defendant no.2. As defendant no.2 has failed to lead any evidence, therefore, this issue can not be decided in favour of the defendant no. 2. Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 15 of 21 However, this is entire premises of the present claim filed by plaintiff before this court.
33. The plaintiff claims that the entire building was built by his father. It is the case of the plaintiff that water tank was fixed on the terrace of the building and therefore he has easementary rights on using staircase to go on the roof. Defendant no.1 had denied any water tank belonging to the plaintiff on the terrace. It is the case of the defendant no.1 that he is the absolute owner of the entire terrace floor and plaintiff has no right or title at the terrace floor. However, defendant no. 2 who is purportedly the owner of the first floor of the property had admitted in written statement filed that defendant no. 2 had also installed the storage water tank on the terrace of the main building. He further mentioned that Sh. Trilok Singh (father of the plaintiff) had requested her for permission to install water tank of 250 ltrs capacity on the servant quarter roof in order to Cater to the requirement of servant quarter which was earlier in occupation of Sh. Trilok Singh in his life time. She had also mentioned that water tank which was installed by Sh. Trilok Singh over the roof of servant quarter had burst long back and had added to the water seepage on the roof of the servant quarter causing damage to the roof. This shows that there was one water tank installed by father of the plaintiff on the terrace of the servant quarter.
34. Issue at hand is for common use of the terrace. However, none of the Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 16 of 21 documents filed in this matter show the common use of terrace. Terrace has rather been sold to defendant no.1 has per his document. However, it is not just the terrace on the second floor there was also terrace on the servant quarter where two water tanks had installed admittedly by defendant no. 2 one of the them was lying in a broken state. It was stated to have belonged to the father of plaintiff who at the relevant time was in possession of the ground floor of the property. Therefore, both the plaintiff as well as defendant no. 2 have not been able to show to common use of the terrace but it is correct that terrace over the servant quarter was used for installation of water tank by the defendant no. 2 and occupier of ground floor. Hence, by the admission in written statement filed by the defendant no.2, it can be concluded that there is one water tank on the terrace/roof of servant quarter which also belongs to the plaintiff. This issue is therefore accordingly decided partly in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 6:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief for permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (a)?
35. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed in his suit the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 1 and 2 their men and agents etc. from disturbing and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever the free ingress and egress of the plaintiff for access to the terrace/ roof top through the staircases constructed in front of Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 17 of 21 the building. From the above discussion, especially issue no. 5 it can be observed that plaintiff has not been able to show any right on the terrace of the entire building though through admission of defendant no. 2 it was noticed that one of the water tank was installed on the terrace of the servant quarter. Further, plaintiff can not have a blanket restraint order for accessing the staircase to the terrace/ roof top in this matter.
36. Though defendants have not stepped into the witness box to establish their contention. However, they have filed their documents in support of their contention. It can be observed that defendant has put his claim through his wife over the basement as well as ground floor based upon the sale deed dated 11.04.2005 between Sh. Sanjeetpal Singh and master Sh. Manitpal Singh through his natural guardian and Mrs. Shipra Verma wife of defendant no. 1. This sale deed is for following portion:
....Entire basement, entire ground floor, garage, servant quarter above garage on first floor level with front lawn and back yard right to access to terrace for the purpose of installation of T.V. Antenna and for repair of over head water tank along with 50% undivided share in the plot of land bearing no. 51, Block A, measuring 492 Sq. Yard situated in layout plan of the New Friends Co operative House Building Society Ltd. with all fittings, fixtures, connections, structures standing thereon and all other common facilities, amenities, services like electricity, water pump, sewage, car parking etc...
37. The above recital shows that the right to access terrace for repair of Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 18 of 21 over head water tank was with the ground floor and basement holder.
38. Though this court is not relying on the documents to see the ownership or title over the property in question but the above recital clarifies that owner of the basement and ground floor had the right to repair his over head tank. Though it does not directly read in favour of the plaintiff but it shows the intention of the executor of the documents that the right to repair the over head water tank was also there. Despite the above recital, the plaintiff has not been able to cogently establish that there was a water tank installed at the terrace of the property but through admission of defendant no. 2, the water tank at the terrace of servant quarter was proved on record.
39. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is right in favour of the plaintiff to use the staircase is for repairing over head water tank over terrace of the servant quarter. While granting interim relief sought by way of interim injunction application Ld. Predecessor had given directions to the plaintiff to install a plastic water tank of not more than 1000 ltrs (vide order dated 23.10.2010). Therefore there is plastic water tank in place of concrete water tank on the terrace of servant quarter. Therefore the plaintiff has right to access for repairing his water tank placed there. However, this right is not unbridled or unfettered. This right is only for maintenance or repair of the water tank installed at the terrace of the servant quarter and Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 19 of 21 repair/maintenance can be done only during reasonable working hours and during reasonable time. Advance notice of one day atleast should be given in case any repair or maintenance work. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 7:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of to relief for permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (b)?
40. The onus to prove this issue was also upon plaintiff. Plaintiff has sought permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 and 2 from disturbing and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever by dismantling and/or encroaching upon the constructed concrete water tanks. Plaintiff has not been able to show any concrete water tank at the terrace but the concrete water tank which has been now replaced by plastic tank has been shown as per findings of issue no. 5. Therefore, only defendant no. 2 can be restrained from dismantling the water tank. Defendant no. 1 has stated to have no right over the terrace of the servant quarter. This issue is decided accordingly.
Relief:
41. Plaintiff has sought relief of mandatory injunction for renovation and/ or reconnecting the damaged water tank. This relief is now infructuous and therefore can not be granted. Consequent to the above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs only to the extent that defendant no. 1 Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 20 of 21 and 2 are restrained from interfering in access of the staircase terrace of the servant quarter for repair/ maintenance work of the water tank subject to repair or maintenance work being done within reasonable hours and with advance at least of one day. Defendant no. 2 is restrained from dismantling the water tank of the plaintiff on terrace of the servant quarter. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due indexing, paging and completion.
Announced in the open court on 25th February 2015. (TANVI KHURANA) The judgment contains 21 pages, Civil Judge01 (South) all checked and signed by me. Saket Courts/New Delhi 25.02.2015 Suit No.667/13 Jagmohan Singh Vs. Gaurav Verma & Ors. Page 21 of 21