Delhi District Court
Ramesh Chander vs Delhi Development Authority on 28 September, 2016
Page No. 1 to 18
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHHAVI KAPOOR, CIVIL JUDGE,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT.
Suit No. 760/14
Case No. 10005/16
Ramesh Chander
S/o Late Prithvi Raj,
R/o H. No. B9/15, Sector18,
Rohini, Delhi110085.
............ Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
I.N.A, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
2. Gurcharan Singh,
S/o Late Hardit Singh,
R/o A4/234, Top Floor, Sector4,
Rohini, 110085.
S/o Address : Reliance Property Dealer,
D13/117, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi110085.
3. Inderjit Kaur, W/o S. S. Makkar,
R/o C1, Suray Darshan Apartment,
Behind Raj Tilad Row House,
Large Society, Dadakdev, Ahmedabad54.
CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 2 to 18
4. Amarjit Kaur, W/o Inder Singh Nanda,
R/o H. NO. 473, Katra Mukim Pura,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi7.
5. Trilochan Singh, S/o Late Hardit Singh,
R/o N26, Ist Floor, Malka Ganj, Delhi7.
6. Dalbir Singh, husband of Late Harjit Kaur
7) Hunny, S/o Dalbir Singh (S/o Late Harjit Kaur)
8) Miss Haline, D/o Dalbir Singh (D/o Late Harjit Kaur)
All R/o 70C/8D/1, Old Tezab Mill Bhola Nath, Shahdara,
Delhi32.
9. Jaspal Singh, S/o Late Hardit Singh
R/o H. No. 473, Latra Mukim Pura,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi7. ................. Defendants
Date of Institution of the Suit : 22.02.2007
Date of Reserving of Judgment : 29.08.2016
Date of Judgment : 28.09.2016
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction.
2. Plaintiff is a senior citizen and claims to have no source of income. It is stated that the plaintiff has purchased the suit plot bearing no. 429, pocket A3, Sector29, Rohini, Delhi, measuring about 32 square CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 3 to 18yards, that has been allotted by DDA vide file no. F.39 (393)/04/LAB/Rohini. The Plot has been purchased by the plaintiff from defendant no. 2, whereas the same was registered in the name of the mother of the defendant no. 2 namely Smt. Kaushalaya Wanti by DDA. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the plot on 23.03.2014 against consideration amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ and after execution of transfer documents such as GPA, Agreement to Sell, receipt, will, indemnity bond, affidavit etc.. It is stated that the GPA and Will are registered documents whereas the remaining documents have merely notarized.
3. It is stated that the mother of the defendant no. 2 Smt. Kaushalaya Wanti expired on 11.01.1995, whereafter the plot was mutated and registered in the name of defendant no. 2. It is claimed that other legal representatives of Smt. Kaushayala Wanti had executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant no. 2 whereafter DDA transferred the registration in his favour vide letter dt. 19.09.2005. It is alleged that the defendant no. 2 is a property dealer and has sold the property to the plaintiff in the name of reliance property dealers. The plaintiff claims that he was handed over the possession of the suit plot alongwith documents by the allottee/defendant no. 2 on 03.11.2005. Plaintiff claims that he has requested the defendant no. 2 to assist him in execution of lease deed in his favour in the records of DDA, but the defendant no. 2 is lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that in the month of CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 4 to 18November, 2006, the defendant no. 2 and his friends/agents asked the plaintiff to return the documents of the plot and take back the consideration amount, to which the plaintiff did not agree. Consequently, the plaintiff was threatened and manhandled. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff got information that the defendant no. 2 and his sisters have submitted an application with DDA for cancellation of registration of the plot in his name, despite the fact that they have already relinquished their share in his favour. The plaintiff has also come to know that the defendant no. 1 / DDA has issued a letter to defendant no. 3 to 7 (other sisters and brothers of defendant no. 2) with regard to their objections for cancellation of mutation in favour of the defendant no. 2. Plaintiff has apprehension that DDA shall complete the process without hearing him and cancel the registration in favour of the defendant no. 2. Plaintiff further has apprehensions that a fresh registration would be carried out in the name of defendant no. 2 to 7, which shall adversely effect the rights of the plaintiff in the suit plot. Therefore, the suit has been filed with the following two prayers : A decree for permanent injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thus thereby restraining the defendant no. 1 from cancelling the registration of plot no. 429, Pocket No. A3, Sector - 29, Rohini, Delhi (allotted by DDA) measuring about 32 sq. mts. Vide file no. F.39(393)/04/LAB/Rohini in the name of Defendant no. 2 and executing fresh transfer and lease in favour of defendant no. 2 to 7 be further restrained from transferring, alienating and creating third party rights in respect of CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 5 to 18said plot.
A decree of mandatory injunction may also be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendant no. 1 to execute the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plot no. 429, Pocket A3, Sector29, Rohini, Delhi (allotted by DDA) measuring about 32 Sq. Mtrs. Vide File No. 39/04/LAB/rohini and other defendant nos. 2 to 7 be directed to complete all the formalities for executing the lease in favour of plaintiff"
4. In the written statement filed by defendant no. 1, it has been admitted that the suit plot had been registered in the name of Smt. Kaushalaya Wanti vide application no. 88446 dt. 13.03.1981 in the LIG Plot, Rohini Residential Scheme. It is claimed that the demand cum allotment letter was issued on 23.01.2004/29.01.2004 for depositing the costs of the plot as per the schedule. It is stated that vide letter of defendant no. 2 dt 11.03.2004, DDA was intimated that Smt. Kaushalaya Wanti had expired on 11.01.1995. It is stated that the vide the said letter, the defendant no. 2 requested for mutation of registration in his name by filing document alongwith a consent letter of other Lrs in his favour. It is claimed that the defendant no. 5 had submitted a complaint in between alleging that the other defendants were trying to get the suit plot transferred in deceitful manner. The said complainant/defendant no. 5 was requested to appear before the concerned officer of DDA with documentary proof, but he did not attend the office and therefore, DDA mutated the registration no. 88446 in favour of defendant no. 2 vide their CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 6 to 18letter dt. 19.09.2005. The possession letter of the suit plot was issued in the name of defendant no. 2 on 17.10.2005 after he deposited the requsite amount of demanded money and thereafter, possession was handed over to him on 03.11.2005. It is stated that on 13.03.2006, a complaint was received from defendant no. 3 to 7 with a request to cancel the registration and allotment in the name of defendant no. 2. Vide letter of DDA dt. 06.07.2006, it was notified to the above stated complainants that the relinquishment deed relied upon by defendant no. 2 was registered and hence, they were directed to take up the matter with the Sub Registrar office. The complainants were directed to file their reply within 15 days from issuance of letter, however, on 07.11.2006, the defendant no. 2 requested DDA to cancel the allotment of the plot in his name and for refund of the amount as he claimed that there were disputes with regard to the property with the other LRS. In view thereof, DDA withdrew the mutation carried out in the name of defendant no. 2 vide letter dt. 02.03.2007. It is therefore, claimed that the suit has become infructous and is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
5. In the written statement filed by defendant no. 2, he has denied that he has sold suit plot to the plaintiff. However, it has been stated that the defendant no. 2 had taken a loan of Rs. 1,30,000/ from the plaintiff, with a view to pay the cost of the plot to DDA. It is alleged that the plaintiff had taken wrongful advantage of the necessity of the defendant CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 7 to 18and got signed documents of the plot as a collateral security for reimbursement of the loan with interest. It is alleged that the defendant was willing to return the loan amount and had asked the plaintiff to return the original documents of the title of the plot to him, but the plaintiff had become dishonest and was misusing the documents to show that he had purchased the plot from him. It is alleged that the plaintiff was misrepresenting facts to obtain a favourable order from the court. It was further alleged that the value of the plot was not less than Rs. 10 lakhs and hence, there could have been no question of selling the same to plaintiff for a sum of RS. 1,30,000/ . It was further submitted that if the plaintiff was aggrieved by the conduct of the defendant, then the proper remedy was to file a suit for Specific Performance of Contract for execution of sale documents in his favour. However, it was stated that the plaintiff had not acquired any rights in the plot on the basis of the documents relied upon by him and hence, he was not entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for in the suit.
6. In the written statement filed by defendant nos. 3,4 & 5, it was been denied that the plaintiff had purchased the suit plot from defendant no. 2 on 23.03.2004 against consideration amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ and on execution of valid documents. It was claimed that all the Lrs of Smt. Kaushalyawanti were entitled to inherit the allotment of the suit plot. It was alleged that the defendant no. 2 had forcibly and fraudulently CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 8 to 18obtained the relinquishment deed in his favour. It was further alleged that the defendant no. 2 had forged the signatures of defendant no. 5 and 7 in the relinquishment deed. It was stated that none of the LRs had visited the office of SubRegistrar for registration of relinquishment deed and other documents. The defendants stated that they had made a complaint to with the Director, LAB, DDA for cancellation of allotment in the name of defendant no. 2, in pursuance of which, the allotment of the suit plot was cancelled on 02.03.2007. It was therefore stated that the defendant no. 2 could not have sold the suit plot to the plaintiff and hence, it was prayed that the suit was liable to be dismissed.
7. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed for adjudication of this case on 01.10.2009.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Relief.
8. In plaintiff's evidence, plaintiffs have examined two witnesses in their evidence. Plaintiff has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/X. This witness has also relied upon the documents which are as follows; Ex. PW1/1; GPA dt. 23.03.2004, Ex. PW1/2; Registered Will dt. 23.03.2004, Ex. PW1/3; Special Power of Attorney, CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 9 to 18Ex. PW1/4; Agreement to Sell, Ex. PW1/5 ; Indemnity Bond, Ex. PW1/6 ; Receipt, Ex. PW1/7; Affidavit of defendant no. 2, dt. 23.03.2004, Ex. PW1/8; possession letter of defendant no. 2 dt. 23.03.2004, Ex. PW1/9; Death Certificate of Smt. Kaushila Wati, who died on 11.01.1995, Mark A; Photocopy of consent/relinquishment deed, Mark B; copy of letter dt. 19.09.2005, Ex. PW1/10; copy of handing over of possession to the defendant no. 1 on 03.11.2005, Ex. PW1/11; DDA's allotment cum demand letter dt. 23.1.2004, Ex. PW1/12; DDA's Receipt no. REC/LD/04/12926 dt. 26.03.2004, Ex. PW1/13; DDA's Receipt No. REC/LD/04/16260, Ex. PW1/14; Challan no. 10671004, Installment paid Rs. 38/379/ dt. 25.03.2004, Mark C; Photocopy of DD No. 079012, Ex. PW1/15; Bank Counterfoil dt. 24.03.2004 of Bank of Baroda, Ex. PW1/16; Bank Certificate of Bank of Baroda dt. 26.04.2007, Ex. PW1/17; Challan No. 10671104 dt. 24.05.2004, Mark D; Photocopy of DD No. 011020 dt. 20.05.2004, Ex. PW1/18 ; Bank Counterfoil dt. 20.05.2004, Ex. PW1/19; Statement of Account dt. 07.09.2009, Ex. PW1/20; DDA's receipt no. REC/LD/04/25,202, dt. 24.05.2004, Ex. PW1/21; Mutation letter from DDA Dt. 19.09.2005, Ex. PW1/22; Challan No. 10671204 dt. 28.09.2005, Mark E i.e. photocopy of DD no. 121449, Ex. PW1/23; Bank Counterfoil dt. 27.09.2005, Ex. PW1/24; Bank Statement dt. 24.04.2007, Ex. PW1/25; DDA's receipt no. REC/LD/04/51, 334, dt CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 10 to 1828.09.2005, Ex. PW1/26; DDA Possession Advice dt. 17.10.2005, Ex. PW1/27; DDA's Receipt no. REC/LD/04/51, 334, dt. 28.09.2005, Ex. PW1/28; DDA Demand Letter for Rs. 6,432/ dt. 02.03.2006, Ex. PW1/29; Receipt of Rs. 6,432/ dt. 22.2.2006, Mark F i.e. photograph of plot/built up property, Ex. PW1/30 i.e. Receipt of property Tax paid dt. 23.04.2007, Ex. PW1/31; Initial information letter to DDA dt. 23.03.2007, Ex. PW1/32; Letter to DDA for summation of relinquishment deed. 19.02.2004, Ex. PW1/33; Consent letter dt. 11.02.2004, Ex. PW1/34; Indemnity Bond dt. 10.02.2004, Ex. PW1/35; Affidavit dt. 17.02.2004, Ex. PW1/36; F.D. of Rs. 2000/ to DDA, Ex. PW1/37; GPA of wife of defendant no. 2 dt. 14.05.2004, EX. PW1/38; Deed of Will of wife of defendant no. 2 dt. 14.05.2004, Ex. PW1/39; Receipt from wife of defendant no. 2 dt. 14.05.2004, Ex. PW1/40; agreement to sell from the wife of defendant no. 2 dt. 14.05.2004, Ex. PW1/41; Affidavit of wife of defendat no. 2 dt. 14.05.2004 and Ex. PW1/42; Possession letter of wife of defendant dt. 14.05.2004
9. One Sh. Om Prakash. LDC, SubRegistrar Office, Pitampura, New Delhi was examined as PW2, who has proved Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/37, Ex. PW1/39 (already exhibited during the evidence of PW1 on 18.01.2011).
10. In defence evidence, defendant no. 1 has examined one Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Director, DDA as DW1 who has tendered his evidence CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 11 to 18by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A. DW1 has relied upon the following documents; Ex. DW1/1 (OSR) i.e. Copy of application 88446 dt. 13.03.1981 of Smt. Kaushalaya Wanti already exhibited as Ex. PW1/58, Ex. DW1/2 (OSR) i.e. copy of demandcumallotment letter issued to Smt. Kaushalaya Wanti dt. 23.01.200429.01.2004, Ex. DW1/3(colly) i.e. copy of letter dt. 11.03.2004 sent by Sh. Gurcharan Singh to DDA, Ex. DW1/4 is deexhibited as the same is not on record, Ex. DW1/5 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dt. 09.12.2004 (objected to mode of proof), Ex. DW1/6 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dt. 25.01.2005 (objected to mode of proof), Ex. DW1/7 (OSR) i.e. Copy of letter dt. 04.05.2005 (objected to mode of proof), Ex. DW1/8 (OSR) i.e. Copy of letter dt. 19.08.2005, Ex. DW1/9 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dt. 19.09.2005, Ex. DW1/10 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dt. 17.10.2005, Ex. DW1/11 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dt. 03.11.2005, Ex. DW1/12 (OSR) i.e. Copy of complaint dt. 13.03.2006 made by Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Amarjeet Kaur and Trilochan Singh, Jaspal Singh and Harjeet Kaur to DDA, Ex. DW1/13 (colly) (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dt. 06.07.2006, Ex. DW1/14 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dt. 21.09.2006, Ex. DW1/15 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dt. 27.10.2006, Ex. DW1/16 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dt. 07.11.2006 sent by Sh. Gurucharan Singh to DDA. (objected to mode of proof), Ex. DW1/17 (OSR) i.e. Copy of letter dt. 02.03.2007 regarding withdrawal of the mutation sent by DDA to Sh. Gurucharan Singh.
CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 12 to 1811. After conclusion of evidence, final arguments were heard by this court.
12. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both the sides and have perused the judicial record.
13. My issue wise findings are as follows : ISSUE NO. 1 AND 2
14. Both the issues can be disposed off by way of a common finding which is as under :
15. Before determining my opinion on the merits of the case, it is worthwhile to mention that apartfrom DDA, none of the other defendants have led evidence of their own in this suit. Infact, defendant no. 2 has not even cross examined plaintiff, when he stepped into the witness box on 18.01.2011 and 19.04.2011.
16. While under oath, plaintiff has reiterated the facts stated by him in his plaint. He has testified that the suit plot was sold to him on 23.03.2004 by one of the Lrs of original allottee Smt. Kaushalyawanti. i.e. defendant no. 2 herein. The witness (PW1) has exhibited on record documents by which he claims to have purchased the suit plot from defendant no. 2 on 23.03.2004. The witness (PW1) has relied upon the relinquishment deed Mark A and the order of DDA dt. 19.09.2005 by which the registration of the plot was mutated in the name of defendant no. 2 as Mark B. The fact that a registered relinquishment deed was CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 13 to 18executed in the name of defendant no. 2 by the remaining Lrs of Smt. Kaushalyawanti is not denied by the defendant no. 2 or by DDA. Infact, the defendant no. 2 has not denied the execution of relinquishment deed in his favour, nevertheless, he has not led any evidence and rebutted the claim of the defendant nos. 3 to 5, wherein they have claimed that their signatures appearing on the relinquishment deed were forged and fabricated by him. Furthermore, the defendant no. 2 has not led any evidence to explain the circumstances under which he applied in DDA for withdrawal of mutation of registration carried out in his name, consequent to receipt of the complaint of the other Lrs. DDA has claimed that they had invited objections/reply from the defendant no.2 upon the complaint of the remaining Lrs, wherein they had alleged that they had not executed the relinquishment deed in his favour, but no objection was cited on their complaint and the defendant no. 2 gave his consent for cancellation of mutation in his name. Infact, the pleadings of the defendant no. 2, coupled with the fact that he has not led any evidence shows that he has not approached the court with clean hands. He seems to have entered into a transaction with the plaintiff on the basis of the relinquishment deed & has thereafter gone behind his back & got the mutation cancelled without challenging the claim of the other Lrs of the relinquishment deed being forged and fabricated.
17. The defendant no. 2 has admitted that he has received an amount CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 14 to 18of Rs. 1,30,000/ from the plaintiff for payment of cost of the plot to DDA but he has claimed that the said amount was received by way of a loan from the plaintiff. Nonetheless, defendant no. 2 has not averred that any loan documents were ever executed between him and the plaintiff in lieu of the loan granted. However, he has admitted to the execution of GPA, SPA etc and other documents, being relied upon by the plaintiff but he has averred that the documents were executed as a collateral security for reimbursement of the loan. It is admitted by the defendant no. 2 that the loan amount has not been returned by him to the plaintiff till today. It is alleged by the defendant no. 2 that he has urged the plaintiff many a times to take back the loan amount but he is purposely not doing so and is wrongfully retaining the original documents of the suit plot. However, there is no evidence to suggest that defendant no. 2 has ever called upon the plaintiff to take back the loan amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ paid by him. The defendant no. 2 could have sent a legal notice to the plaintiff, thereby demanding him to return the original documents of the suit plot and take back the loan amount from him. The defendant no. 2 has not even issued a letter, thereby cancelling the GPA, SPA etc., executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 2 has instead tried to potray that he was playing fair with the process of law when he applied to DDA for withdrawal of mutation by admitting that there were issues with the other claimants in the property. However, equity demanded him to CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 15 to 18disclose it to DDA that he had infact executed documents of transfer of the suit plot in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2004. The contention of the DDA counsel that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and them is correct, however, the evidence of DW1 proves that no detailed inquiry was conducted upon the complaint of the other Lrs of Smt. Kaushalaya Wanti when they claimed that they had not executed any relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant no. 2. Admittedly, the officials of DDA knew that the document was registered and had even advised the complainants to take up the matter with the concerned Sub Registrar. Nevertheless, since allegations of forgery were made with regard to the papers of property of DDA, it was the bounden duty of government authority to inquire into the allegations and take action against the wrong doers. DDA could not have simply cancelled the mutation carried out by them in favour of the defendant no. 2 upon his application and no objection. DDA has not even stated whether they have returned the cost of the flat deposited by defendant no. 2 or have forfeited or retained the same. Though, it is correct that even the plaintiff had not intimated the fact of execution of documents in his favour to DDA in time, nevertheless, he had issued a letter dt. 23.02.2007 to DDA, thereby notifying them of his rights in the suit plot. The letter dt. 23.02.2007 has been received in the office of DDA as this fact is admitted by DW1 in his crossexamination. The document Ex. DW1/P2 (OSR) shows that the CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 16 to 18letter of plaintiff has been received in branch LAB Rohini on 26.02.2007. Despite receipt of the letter of the plaintiff, the officials of DDA went ahead and withdrew the mutation in the name of defendant no. 2 on 02.03.2007. The said order appears to have been passed in haste, without affording the plaintiff an opportunity of being heard. In my tenure as a judicial officer presiding over cases involving DDA and Union of India, I have seldom seen a file move at such a fast pace in the department. Usually, on receipt of complaints, a preliminary inquiry or a hearing is afforded to the complainant before making the final order. No such inquiry has been conducted before cancelling the mutation of the defendant no. 2. During the course of arguments, DDA counsel has stated that it does not appear that the plot has been inspected by the staff before cancelling the mutation of defendant no. 2. The plaintiff has claimed that he was placed in possession of the suit plot by defendant no. 2, but the defendant no. 2 has belied this fact. However, he has not led any evidence to show that he has not parted with possession of the suit plot. On the other hand, defendant no. 2 has admitted that all the original documents of the property are in the possession of the plaintiff and were handed over by him only. The remaining defendants have not alleged that they are in possession of the suit plot. The evidence led on record shows that the documents such as GPA, SPA, Will dt. 23.03.2004, etc (as relied upon by the plaintiff) were executed lawfully by the defendant no. 2 in CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.
Page No. 17 to 18favour of the plaintiff. Infact, the day when the above said documents were executed by the defendant no. 2, he had all rights in the suit property on the basis of a registered relinquishment deed executed by remaining LRs of deceased Kaushalyawanti in his favour. The said document has not been cancelled or declared as void till today. The defendant nos. 3 to 5 have not led any evidence to prove that their signatures are forged on the relinquishment deed. The evidence led by DDA shows that the plot is still not cancelled and stands registered in the name of deceased Kaushalaya Wanti. Therefore, the order by which the mutation of the plot in the name of the defendant no. 2 has been cancelled by DDA is proven to have been passed by following an unjust and arbitrary procedure. The department has also not come out clean as it is clear that due process of law has not been followed while dealing with the case of the plaintiff. Hence, the order of DDA, thereby cancelling the registration of the suit plot in the name of defendant no. 2 is struck down and they are restrained from executing fresh registration in the name of defendant nos. 2 to 7. The defendant nos. 2 to 7 are hereby restrained from creating third party interest in the suit plot. The relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for in the suit, is also allowed by directing plaintiff to complete the formalities as prescribed by DDA so that lease deed be executed in his favour. Issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors. Page No. 18 to 18
18. In view of the above stated findings, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs (to be paid by defendant no. 2). Decree sheet be prepared.
Announced in the Open Court (CHHAVI KAPOOR) today on 28th of September, 2016 Civil Judge06/West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi This judgment contains 18 pages and all the pages are signed by me.
(CHHAVI KAPOOR)
Civil Judge06/West
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS No. 760/14 Ramesh Chander Vs DDA & Ors.