Delhi District Court
Surender Kumar vs Aruna Sharma Ors on 10 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH KISHOR KUMAR,
DISTRICT JUDGE-04,
NORTH : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS DJ No. 57862/2016
CNR No. DLNT01-000037-2014
SH SURENDER KUMAR
s/o Sh Sangat Ram
R/o 6/26, Geeta Colony, Delhi 110031.
.............Plaintiff
VERSUS
MS ARUNA SHARMA
w/o Sh Sudhir Sharma
R/o Khasra no. 195, Plot no. 84A, Phool Bagh,
Village Ibrahimpur, Delhi 110084
SH SURENDER
s/o Sh Jagat Singh,
R/o Village Burari, Delhi.
............Defendants
Date of Institution : 07.04.2014
Date of Order : 10.05.2024
Final Order : Decreed
E X - PAR T E J U D G M E N T
1.Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants interalia contending that plaintiff purchased the vacant plot bearing no. 89 measuring 220 sq yards 2 Bigha 16 Biswa comprising out of Khasra no. 195(2-16), Revenue Estate, Village Ibrahimpur, Phool Bagh, Shastri Park, Delhi (hereinafter referred to be as suit property), was originally owned by defendant no.2, through registered Power of Attorney, deed of will and agreement to sell all dated 09.05.2000 CS DJ 57862/16 Surender Kumar vs Aruna Sharma Ors. 1/5 for a total consideration of Rs.45,000/-. Thereafter, plaintiff constructed the pucca boundary wall over the suit property in the year 2000. Due to family problems, the plaintiff could not take care and visit the suit property since 2009 onwards and in September, 2013, to utter shock and surprise of plaintiff, he found that defendant no.1 with some gunda element had taken illegal possession of the 25 sq yards of suit property and constructed a shop on area measuring 25 sq yards. Upon requesting by plaintiff to vacate the suit property, the defendant no.1 threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences and told that he purchased the suit property but no documents were shown. In December, 2013, the plaintiff filed complaint to DCP (NW) Ashok Vihar, Delhi against defendant no.1 for illegal possession over the suit property but no action was taken. Further, plaintiff confronted defendant no.2 qua forged and false documents prepared by defendant no.1 to which defendant no.2 clearly told that he had not sold a single inch of land, which was sold to plaintiff, to anyone except plaintiff and that he is ready and willing to give his statement before any court of law. Further, defendant no.1 in collusion with some property dealers has forged and fabricated the documents qua suit property and defendant no.2 has been made proforma party to avert any illegal objection of the defendant no.1. Hence, the present suit.
2. Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants and being served, ld proxy counsel for defendant no.2 had appeared and he has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of defendant no.2. But none appeared for defendant no.1 and defendant CS DJ 57862/16 Surender Kumar vs Aruna Sharma Ors. 2/5 no.1 was thereby proceeded against ex-parte on dated 22.04.2014. Further, none appeared for defendant no.2 nor written statement was filed and vide order dt 27.05.2014, defendant no.2 also proceeded against ex-parte.
3. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents :-
1. Ex.PW1/1 de-exhibited and marked as Mark A which is copy of Khatoni.
2. Ex.PW1/2(OSR): Site Plan
3. Ex.PW1/3(OSR): GPA dated 09.05.2000
4. Ex.PW1/4(OSR): Deed of Will
5. Ex.PW1/5(colly) : Agreement to Sell
6. Ex.PW1/6 is de-exhibited and Mark B which is copy of written complaint.
4. Plaintiff further examined Sh Sanjeev Kumar, Halka Patwari, SDM Office and Sh Om, who are summoned witnesses, have examined themselves as PW2 and PW3, respectively. PW2 brought the copy of original Khatoni which is Ex.PW2/A and thereafter, ex- parte plaintiff evidence was closed on 26.05.2015 and matter was fixed for ex-parte final arguments.
5. Plaintiff further examined Sh Surender Kumar as PW4, who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW4/A and relied on documents already exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5. Thereafter, CS DJ 57862/16 Surender Kumar vs Aruna Sharma Ors. 3/5 ex-parte plaintiff evidence was closed on 26.05.2015 and matter was fixed for ex-parte final arguments.
6. During the course of the proceedings, plaintiff has filed an application u/o VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment in plaint to the extent that suit property be read as admeasuring 50 sq yards instead of 25 sq yards. Vide order dated 06.08.2019, the ld Predecessor has allowed the aforesaid application and amended plaint was taken on record. Thereafter, PW1/plaintiff was again examined in chief who relied on the original site plan which is exhibited as Ex.PW1/7 and Copy of FIR which is Mark X.
7. I have heard ld counsel for the plaintiff and have carefully gone through the material available on record.
8. PW1/plaintiff has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A in terms of the averments made in the plaint.
9. Having heard the arguments advanced by the ld counsel for the plaintiff, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff company has filed the suit based on the documents like Khatoni, site plan, general power of attorney, deed of will, agreement to sell, receipt. Since there is nothing on record contrary to the facts stated by the plaintiff as well as the documentary evidences placed on record, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the facts stated in the plaint.
CS DJ 57862/16 Surender Kumar vs Aruna Sharma Ors. 4/5 RELIEF
10. In view of my discussion hereinabove, a decree for possession is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1, his agents, assignees thereby directing them to restore the possession of the suit property i.e. Plot no. 89, measuring 50 sq yards, out of Khasra no. 195, situated in area of village Ibrahimpur, Phool Bagh, Shastri Park, Delhi.
11. Since what documents have been executed by defendant no.1 in favour of whom, nor any such documents have been filed on record, nor particulars thereof furnished, decree of declaration as prayed for cannot be granted to the plaintiff.
12. A decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 restraining the defendant no.1, his agents, assignees, etc, to raise further construction over the suit property or to create third party interest in the suit property.
13. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court,
KISHOR
on 10th May, 2024 KUMAR
Digitally signed by
(Kishor Kumar)
KISHOR KUMAR
Date: 2024.05.10
16:16:58 +0530
DJ-04, North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS DJ 57862/16 Surender Kumar vs Aruna Sharma Ors. 5/5