Delhi District Court
Shalini Keswani vs Santosh Devi Mittal on 22 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-03, NORTH-WEST DISTT.,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. : 579004/16
In the matter of:
1.Shalini Keswani W/o Sh. Nand Keshwani, R/o C-1/29, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
2. Chandni Keswani, W/o Sh. Naresh Keswani, R/o C-1/29, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
3. Chandi Ram Chawla, S/o Sh. Megh Raj Chawla, R/o PP-3, Pitampura, Delhi-110088. ........ Plaintiffs VERSUS Santosh Devi Mittal, W/o Sh. Bajrang Lal Mittal, R/o 158, Block F-1U, Pitampura, Delhi-110088.
Also at: E-1076, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110034. ........ Defendant AND CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani CS NO. 96/2020 In the matter of:
Santosh Devi Mittal, W/o Sh. Bajrang Lal Mittal, R/o 158, Block F-1U, Pitampura, Delhi-110088.
Also at: E-1076, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110034. ........ Counter claimant VERSUS
1. Shalini Keswani W/o Sh. Nand Keshwani, R/o C-1/29, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
2. Chandni Keswani, W/o Sh. Naresh Keswani, R/o C-1/29, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
3. Chandi Ram Chawla, S/o Sh. Megh Raj Chawla, R/o PP-3, Pitampura, Delhi-110088. ........ Defendants Date of institution : 24.01.2014 Date on which judgment was reserved : 19.11.2022 Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 22.11.2022 CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani CONSOLIDATED JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the suit filed by the plaintiffs Shalini Keshwani and the counter claim filed by the defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendant as per the case of Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the plaintiffs are that the defendant was the owner of the suit property i.e. property bearing no. 158, Ground floor and First floor, Block F-
1U, Pitampura, Delhi admeasuring 126.687 sq yards (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). After due deliberations between the parties, it was agreed that the suit property shall be sold by the defendant to the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs. 1 crore. On 10.07.2013, a registered Sale Deed was executed between the parties in respect of the said property. The payment was made by the plaintiffs to the defendant as under:-
Sl. No. DD no. Date Amount Drawn on
1. 003824 09.07.2013 49,50,000/- IDBI Bank,
Ashok Vihar,
Delhi
CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal
and Page No. 20 of 20
CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani
2. 003828 09.07.2013 24,75,000/- IDBI Bank,
Ashok Vihar,
Delhi
3. 008254 09.07.2013 24,75,000/- HDFC Bank,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
3. It was agreed between the parties that after the execution of the Sale Deed, the defendant shall hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs after 15 days but the same was not done. The plaintiffs requested the defendant again and again to hand over the possession of the suit property but in vain. Then on 02.08.2013, the plaintiffs received a legal notice from the lawyer of the defendant wherein she had malafidely stated that she had not received the demand drafts from the plaintiff. The plaintiffs duly responded to the defendant wherein the plaintiffs mentioned that the demand drafts had already been handed over by them to the defendant. However even then, the defendant did not hand over the possession of the property to the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession, mesne profits/ damages and mandatory injunction.
4. The defendant was served and she filed the WS in the court. In the WS, the defendant admitted the factum of her ownership and the Sale Deed between herself and the plaintiffs. CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani However, she stated that the payment was never made by the plaintiffs to her. Hence, the Sale Deed was liable to be canceled. The defendant also filed a counter claim to the suit wherein she sought the relief that the impugned Sale Deed should be declared null and void and that the plaintiffs should be restrained from taking any action on the basis of Sale Deed.
5. The plaintiffs filed the WS to the counter claim as well as the replication in the main suit.
6. Thereafter, consolidated issues were framed upon the suit and the counter claim by Ld. Predecessor court vide order dated 28.09.2015 which are as follows:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of the Ground and First floors of the property bearing no. 158, Block F-1U, Pitampura, Delhi-110088, admeasuring 126.687 sq yards?OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits/ damages @ Rs. 30,000/- per month with effect from filing of the suit till the actual date of delivery of possession? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction thereby restraining the defendant, its assigns, attorney, successor-in-interest, Directors, from creating third party interest in respect of the ground and first floors of the property bearing no. 158, Block F-1U, Pitampura, Delhi- 110088? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for interest, if yes, at what rate? OPP.
CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani
5. Whether the plaintiffs do not have any legal right, title, interest or locus-standi to file and contest the present suit, as the sale deed dated 10th July, 2013 has been cancelled by the defendant? OPD.
Issues in Counter-claim
6. Whether the defendant/ counter claimant is entitled to a decree for declaration against the plaintiffs, declaring the sale deed dated 10th July, 2013 as null and void? OPD/CC.
7. Whether the defendant/ counter claimant is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 10 th July, 2013? OPD/CC.
8. Relief.
7. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for PE. The entire evidence in the present matter has been recorded through Ld. Local Commissioner vide order dated 28.09.2015.
8. The plaintiffs firstly examined Sh. Chandi Ram Chawla as PW-1 (wrongly mentioned as PW-3 in the statement). He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/C. He relied upon the following documents in his evidence:-
a) Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 10.07.2013 as Ex. PW1/1.
b) Certificate issued by IDBI Bank regarding DD no. 3824 dated
09.07.2013 of Rs. 49,50,000/- is Ex. PW1/2.
CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani
c) Certificate issued by IDBI Bank regarding DD no. 3828 dated 09.07.2013 of Rs. 24,75,000/- is Ex. PW1/3.
d) Certificate issued by HDFC Bank pertaining to Banker's cheque in the sum of Rs. 24,75,000/- on 09.07.2013 is Ex. PW1/4.
e) The copy of form no. 26QB for the financial year 2013-14 is Ex. PW1/5.
f) The copy of the legal notice dated 02.08.2013 is Ex. PW1/6.
g) The copy of reply of the plaintiff's along with postal receipts and courier receipts are Ex. PW1/7 (colly).
h) The copy of legal notice dated 10.08.2013 got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant is Ex. PW1/8.
9. Thereafter, Sh. Bharat Vatwani has examined as PW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is exhibited as Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that the Ex. PW1/C given in his affidavit be treated as Ex. PW2/A.
10. Thereafter, Ms. Rekha Rani, Asstt. Manager, IDBI Bank, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi was examined as PW-3. She proved the following documents:-
a) Certificate issued by Ms. Pooja Sethi, Branch Head whose signatures, she identified on the certificate in respect of DD no.
3828 dated 09.07.2013 in the sum of Rs. 24,75,000/- in favour of CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani Santosh Devi Mittal as Ex. PW3/1. This DD was issued by debiting the amount from the joint bank account in which Naresh Keswani is the first holder and Chandni Keswani is the second account holder.
b) The print screen of the DD no. 3828 is Ex. PW3/2 and the copy of the statement of joint account in the name of Naresh Keswani and Chandni Keswani from 09.07.2013 to 25.06.2016 is Ex. PW3/3.
c) Certificate Ex. PW3/4 is qua the DD no. 3824 dated 09.07.2013 in the sum of Rs. 49,50,000/- in favour of Santosh Devi Mittal.
d) The print screen of DD is Ex. PW3/5
e) The copy of the statement of account is Ex. PW3/6.
11. Thereafter, Sh. Prasant Kumar, Asstt. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Shastri Nagar Branch, Delhi was examined as PW-4. He proved the following documents:-
a) Ex. PW4/1 i.e. the certificate issued by Ms. Isha Bhatia, Personal Banker Authoriser (PBA) and her signatures on certificate in respect of DD no. 008254 dated 09.07.2013 in the sum of Rs. 24,75,000/- in favour of Santosh Devi Mittal.
b) Ex. PW4/2 is the copy of the statement of bank account in the name of Atul Agencies for the period from 14.12.2011 to 16.07.2016.
12. Thereafter, Sh. Attar Singh, UDC, Sub-Registrar office, CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani 6-A, Pitampura, Rohini, New Delhi has been examined as PW-5. He proved the following documents:-
a) Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 10.07.2013 as Ex. PW1/1.
13. In the defence evidence, the defendant has examined herself as DW-1 i.e. Ms. Santosh Devi Mittal and she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. She relied upon following documents:-
a) Copy of Sale Deed dated 10.07.2013 as Ex. DW1/1 (already exhibited as Ex. PW1/1).
b) The copy of legal notice dated 02.08.2013 along with postal receipts is Ex. DW1/2(colly).
c) Copy of letter dated 05.08.2013 is Ex. DW1/3 and copy of letter dated 10.08.2013 is Ex. DW1/4.
14. Thereafter, Sh. Jitender Mittal i.e. the son of the defendant has been examined as DW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW2/A. Thereafter, PE and DE was closed vide order dated 29.07.2016. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue no. 1, 3, 6 and 7:
"(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani possession of the ground and first floors of the property bearing no. 158, Block F-1U, Pitampura, Delhi-110088, admeasuring 126.687 sq yards? OPP.
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction thereby restraining the defendant, its assigns, attorney, successor-in-interest, Directors, from creating third party interest in respect of the ground and first floors of the property bearing no. 158, Block F-1U, Pitampura, Delhi-110088? OPP.
(6) Whether the defendant/ counter claimant is entitled to a decree for declaration against the plaintiffs, declaring the sale deed dated 10th July, 2013 as null and void? OPD/CC. (7) Whether the defendant/ counter claimant is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 10 th July, 2013? OPD/CC."
15. All these issues being inter-connected shall be discussed together. The onus to prove first two issues was upon the plaintiff and the onus to prove last two issues was upon the defendant. In the present matter, it is an admitted position that the defendant was the erstwhile owner of the suit property. It is also admitted that the plaintiffs had agreed to purchase the suit property from the defendant for a total consideration amount of Rs. 1 crore. A Sale Deed was also executed between the parties on 10.07.2013 before the office of the Sub-Registrar-VIA. The Sale Deed is Ex. PW1/1 and also Ex. DW1/1, being relied upon by both the parties. The cause of dispute between the parties is regarding the factum of CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani payment. On the one side, the plaintiffs have claimed that the payment was made by them to the defendant vide three separate demand drafts whose details are as under while the defendant has denied receiving the same:-
Sl. No. DD no. Date Amount Drawn on
1. 003824 09.07.2013 49,50,000/- IDBI Bank,
Ashok Vihar,
Delhi
2. 003828 09.07.2013 24,75,000/- IDBI Bank,
Ashok Vihar,
Delhi
3. 008254 09.07.2013 24,75,000/- HDFC Bank,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
16. The onus to prove the respective averment was upon the respective parties. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the entire payment, by virtue of these demand drafts, was handed over to the defendant by the plaintiff before the office of the Sub- Registrar at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the factum qua the same is specifically mentioned in the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/1 at page no. 8. It is submitted that as the Sale Deed stood executed before the Ld. Sub-Registrar and the consideration amount was also paid by the plaintiff to the CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani defendant, the suit may be decreed in the favour of the plaintiff.
17. In this regard, the plaintiffs have also relied upon the statements of bank witnesses namely PW-3 Ms. Rekha Rani who was working as Asstt. Manager, IDBI Bank, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi. She stated on Oath before the court that the DD no. 3828 dated 09.07.2013 in the sum of Rs. 24,75,000/- was drawn from the account of Sh. Naresh Keswani and Smt. Chandni Keswani. The certificate issued by the bank in this regard was proved as Ex. PW3/1. The print screen of the DD was proved as Ex. PW3/2 and the bank account statement was proved as Ex. PW3/3. She also produced the certificate issued in respect of DD no. 3824 dated 09.07.2013 for a sum of Rs. 49,50,000/- drawn from the account of Ms. Shalini Keswani i.e. the plaintiff no. 1. The certificate issued by the bank in this regard was proved as Ex. PW3/4. The print screen of the DD was proved as Ex. PW3/5 and the bank account statement was proved as Ex. PW3/6. She further stated that both the DDs were lying unpaid till date in the bank record.
18. Similarly, the plaintiffs produced PW-4 Sh. Prasant Kumar, Asstt. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Shastri Nagar Branch, Delhi who proved similar record on behalf of plaintiff no. 3. The CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani certificate issued by the bank in this regard was proved as Ex. PW4/1 and the bank account statement was proved as Ex. PW4/2. He also deposed in the same manner that the DD was still lying unpaid till date in the bank record. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the consideration amount was debited from the account of the plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed. The demand drafts are still lying unpaid. It is not the case that the plaintiffs are enjoying the amount. The same is already deducted from their accounts. Now, it was upon the defendant to get the demand drafts encashed. As the consideration amount is already deducted from the account of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs have performed their part of the contract. Hence, as the consideration has left their hands, the sale is complete. Hence, the judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the defendant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
19. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that admittedly the consideration amount has never reached to the defendant. As per the case of the plaintiffs themselves, the consideration amount is still lying unpaid with the bank. It is submitted that as the consideration amount was never paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, the Sale Deed, though executed before the Sub-Registrar does not take effect as the sale transaction was not CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani complete. It is submitted that the sale transaction could not have been completed till the transfer of the consideration amount from the plaintiffs to the defendant as the same is one of the material aspects of the sale transaction. In this regard, Ld. Counsel has relied upon one judgment titled as Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Civil Appeal no. 6989-6992/2021 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 22.11.2021.
20. Record perused. Both the parties appeared in the witness box in support of their allegations and they were duly cross examined by the opposite counsels. Both the parties remained firm on their respective stands during their cross examinations. At the cost of repetition, the plaintiff has averred that they had paid the consideration amount to the defendant, while the defendant has averred that the same was not received by her. In view of the same, the Sale deed Ex. PW1/1 has to be looked into. The execution of the Sale deed is not in dispute between the parties. The original record was also summoned from the office of the Sub-Registrar. As pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, it is clearly mentioned at page no. 8 of the Sale deed Ex. PW1/1 that the consideration amount of Rs. 1 crore was received by the vendor i.e. the defendant from the vendees i.e. the plaintiffs as per the details given below. The details of the demand drafts were clearly mentioned in the Sale deed. The CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani relevant page has also been signed by the defendant. Hence, the defendant claiming that she never received the demand drafts is in contrast to the written endorsement in the Sale deed Ex. PW1/1.
21. In this regard, Section 92 Indian Evidence Act can be relied upon which provides as under:-
"Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.--When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms"
22. There are six provisos to the said provision but none of them apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. As the factum of payment is specifically mentioned in the Sale deed Ex. PW1/1, the defendant is estopped from claiming that she did not receive the same.
23. Furthermore, the defendant produced a legal notice which was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant on 10.08.2013 through their counsel which is proved as Ex. DW1/4. In the said CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani legal notice, the plaintiffs have again referred to their demand drafts which were allegedly given by them to the defendant. On page no. 6 of the legal notice, in the last para, it has been mentioned by the plaintiffs that in case, the demand drafts were lost by the defendant, then they shall assist the defendant for issuance of duplicate demand drafts. The defendant has throughout taken this stand that the payment was never received by her from the plaintiff. She has also stated that she asked for the consideration amount from the plaintiff but the same was denied. She also issued a legal notice dated 02.08.2013 which is Ex. DW1/2 for this purpose. However, as per her own document i.e. Ex. DW1/4, the plaintiffs have offered the defendant to get duplicate DDs issued to her but no such step has been taken by the defendant for the same. In view of the same, the version of the plaintiff seems to be probable. The court is inclined to believe that the payment was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant but for some reason, the defendant chose not to present those demand drafts for encashment. In view of the same, the judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant i.e. Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the plaintiffs have proved that they had handed over the consideration amount to the defendant and in fact, they had offered to get the demand drafts reissued, in case, the same were lost by the defendant.
CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani
24. Hence, as the demand drafts were not encashed by the defendant, she can not take the benefit of the same. At the cost of repetition, the plaintiff has proved that the demand drafts were handed over to the defendant and they had offered to get them reissued also immediately upon the information received from the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to reap the benefits of the sale/ purchase. In view of the above discussion, these issues are decided in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 2:
"(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits/ damages @ Rs. 30,000/- per month with effect from filing of the suit till the actual date of delivery of possession? OPP."
25. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have claimed mesne profits/ damages @ Rs. 30,000/- p.m from the date of filing of the suit till the actual delivery of possession. However, no evidence was led by the plaintiffs to show that the property could fetch this amount as monthly rent/ damages. However, as discussed in the previous issues, it is proved that the plaintiffs had purchased the property from the defendant and that despite the same, the defendant did not deliver the possession of the property to the plaintiffs. It is also proved that the consideration CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani amount had been paid by the plaintiffs. In view of the same, lump- sum damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- are awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendant. Hence, this issue is also decided in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 4:
"(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for interest, if yes, at what rate? OPP."
26. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has proved that despite the execution of the Sale deed and the payment of the consideration amount, the possession of the property was not delivered by the defendant to them. Hence, damages have also been awarded to the plaintiffs. Further, interest @ 6% p.a. is awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendant from the date of institution of the suit till its actual realization. Hence, this issue is also decided in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 5:
"(5) Whether the plaintiffs do not have any legal right, title, interest or locus-standi to file and contest the present suit, as the sale deed dated 10 th July, 2013 has been cancelled by the defendant? OPD."
CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani
27. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. In view of the discussion as mentioned in issue no. 1, 3, 6 and 7, this issue is decided in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
RELIEF
28. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff are entitled to the following reliefs:-
(1) The defendant shall deliver the vacant peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing no. 158, Ground floor and First floor, Block F-1U, Pitampura, Delhi admeasuring 126.687 sq yards to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall assist the defendant in the revalidation of the demand drafts which were handed over by them to the defendant at the time of the execution of the Sale deed.
(2) The defendants are restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
(3) The defendant shall pay a lump-sum damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the plaintiffs along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.
29. The counter claim filed by the defendant is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. However, the plaintiff is awarded the CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani cost of the court fees and the Local Commissioner who recorded the evidence in the present matter. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on 22nd November, 2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2022.11.22
16:19:58 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
Addl. Distt. Judge-03, North-West Distt., Rohini Courts, Delhi.
This judgment contains 20 pages and each page is checked and signed by me.
CS No. 579004/16 Shalini Keswani Vs. Santosh Devi Mittal and Page No. 20 of 20 CS NO. 96/2020 Santosh Devi Mittal Vs. Shalini Keswani