Delhi District Court
Mrs. Sangeeta Arora vs Smt. Indrawati on 4 March, 2015
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. G. N. PANDEY
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 273/14
Case I.D. Number : 02402C0155262011
IN THE MATTER OF :
Mrs. Sangeeta Arora
W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Arora
R/o 162, Teliwara, Shahdara,
Delhi110032. ........ Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt. Indrawati
W/o Late Sukhbir Singh, Lal Chand
R/o 19995, Gali No. 3,
West Gorakh Park, Shahdara
Delhi110032 ........ Defendant
Date of Institution of suit : 20.05.2011
Received in this Court :28.02.2014
Date of argument : 26.02.2015
Date of Judgment/Order : 04.03.2015
Decision : Suit is dismissed with costs
CS No. 273/14 page 1 of 19
Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Suit for specific performance
J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this judgment I shall decide the suit for specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 02.11.2011 in respect of shop bearing No. 3, portion
of property No. 1/7226, Land Area measuring 18.54 sq. meters along with
structure of one shop with boundary wall with iron shutter, terrace rites with
right to construct up to last storey out of khasra No. 236, Village Babarpur in
the abadi of Shiva Ji Park, Babarpur Main Road, Illaqua Shahdara Delhi32
( hereinafter called the suit property) filed by the plaintiff against the
defendant. In the alternative the plaintiff has prayed for recovery of Rs. 2 lakh
along with interest @ 24% per annum and compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint is that an agreement
to sell dated 02.11.2010 regarding the suit property was entered between the
plaintiff and defendant for total consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs out of which the
plaintiff paid Rs. 2 lakh in cash and Rs. 3 lakh vide cheque. The balance
consideration remained to be paid at the time of delivering the vacant
possession, execution and sale deed on or before 31.12.2010. The defendant
despite repeated requests did not execute the sale deed. Legal Notice dated
21.12.2010 was also issued to the defendant by the plaintiff but of no avail.
The defendant filed eviction petition against the tenant. As the defendant did
not execute the sale deed, this suit is filed by the plaintiff against the
CS No. 273/14 page 2 of 19
Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
defendant contending that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the
balance consideration of Rs. 6 lakh.
3. The defendant has contested the present suit by filing the written
statement cum counter claim wherein taken preliminary objections such as
this suit is not maintainable, plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit, there
is no cause of action for filing of this suit, the plaintiff has not come to the
court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, this suit is barred
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. As further contended, this suit is filed by the
plaintiff to help Omprakash Kumar/ fatherinlaw of the plaintiff who is
facing the eviction petition filed by the defendant and is pending before Ld.
Rent Controller. It is mentioned that defendant never agreed to sell the
property nor executed any document in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff
given in writing to the defendant that no amount is due. The agreement, if any
being unregistered cannot be relied. On merits the defendant claimed that her
thumb impression was taken by Omprakash Kumar in collusion with the
plaintiff on the pretext that the same is rent receipt required by him for
taxation purpose. The defendant further denied the execution of any
agreement to sell or receiving consideration. In the counter claim the
defendant prayed that the agreement dated 02.11.10 and receipt dated 11.10.10
be declared null and void. While denying the rest of material contentions of
the plaintiff in the plaint, defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
CS No. 273/14 page 3 of 19
Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
4. Replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein the
contents of the plaint have been reiterated and the assertions of the defendant
to the contrary have been controverted.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have
been framed vide order dated 11.10.2012:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance
of the agreement dated 02.11.2010 or in the alternative decree for
refund of Rs. 2.00 lacs along with interest @ 24% p. a. from the date
of filing of suit till its realization ? ( OPP )
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 2.00 lacs along
with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its
realization ? ( OPP)
(3) Whether the plaintiff has fraudulently obtained the thumb
impressions of the defendant on the alleged agreement to sell dated
02.11.2010 ? (OPD)
(4) Whether the plaintiff executed any receipt regarding Rs. 2.00 lacs
in favour of the defendant copy of which has been filed by defendant
with Written Statement ? ( OPD)
(5) Whether the plaintiff has made any payment of Rs. 2.00 lacs to the
defendant ? If in the affirmative, the nature of such payment ? ( OPD)
(6) Whether the defendant is entitled to relief of declaration in respect
CS No. 273/14 page 4 of 19
Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
of the agreement dated 02.11.2010 as prayed for ? OPD
(7) Relief.
The case was thereafter fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
6. In support of the case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 by way of
affidavit Ex. PW1/A. By way of her affidavit of evidence, the plaintiff has
reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. The witness has also relied upon
the relevant documents i.e. Agreement to sell dated 02.11.2010 Ex. PW1/1,
Receipt dated 11.11.2010 Ex. PW1/2, Legal Notice dated 21.12.2010
Ex.PW1/3, Postal Receipts Ex.PW1/4 and Courier Receipts Ex.PW1/5.
Other witness Sh. Harbans Kohli was examined as PW2 who deposed
regarding agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1. Plaintiff further examined Sh.
Jatinder Kumar Khurana, Assistant Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank,
Babarpur, Delhi as PW3 and Sh. Girish Vidya, Ahlmad from the court of Ld.
Sr. Civil Judge as PW4. The PW4 deposed regarding the pendency of the
Evicition Petition No. 27.2010 filed by the defendant against Om Prakash i.e.
fatherinlaw of the plaintiff U/S 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. As no other
witness remained to be examined on behalf of plaintiff, PE was closed and
case was fixed for DE.
7. The affidavit of one witness Sh. Virender Singh was filed on behalf of
defendant vide affidavit Ex. DW1/A and the witness was examined as DW1.
The DE was thereafter closed.
CS No. 273/14 page 5 of 19
Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and considered the
relevant materials on record along with provisions of law. The Ld. Counsel
for the plaintiff has relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Civil
Appeal No. 28852887 of 2005 in support of claim and contentions whereas
Ld. counsel for defendant has relied upon the following judgments in support
of the defence i.e :
(1) AIR 2002 Ker. 297.
(2) AIR 2005 SC 1836.
(3) AIR 2007 (NOC) 2470 Delhi.
(4) 1970 SCR(I) 928.
My findings on the above said issues are as follows :
ISSUE No. 1 to 6
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific
performance of the agreement dated 02.11.2010 or in the
alternative decree for refund of Rs. 2.00 lacs along with interest @
24% p. a. from the date of filing of suit till its realization ? ( OPP )
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 2.00 lacs
along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of
suit till its realization ? ( OPP)
(3) Whether the plaintiff has fraudulently obtained the thumb
CS No. 273/14 page 6 of 19
Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
impressions of the defendant on the alleged agreement to sell dated
02.11.2010 ? (OPD)
(4) Whether the plaintiff executed any receipt regarding Rs. 2.00
lacs in favour of the defendant copy of which has been filed by
defendant with Written Statement ? ( OPD)
(5) Whether the plaintiff has made any payment of Rs. 2.00 lacs
to the defendant ? If in the affirmative, the nature of such payment
? ( OPD)
(6) Whether the defendant is entitled to relief of declaration in
respect of the agreement dated 02.11.2010 as prayed for ? OPD
9. The brief and relevant facts for filing of the suit along with the defence
of the defendant is mentioned at the outset. The onus to prove the issues
above mentioned remained on the parties as per their contentions in the
pleadings. All these issues are examined and adjudicated together being inter
related.
10. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings
of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit in the form of plaint and
written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the
contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that.
Being a civil suit, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of
CS No. 273/14 page 7 of 19
Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
probabilities.
In the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in
183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to observe
as under:
"A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The
balance of probabilities in the present case shows that the
Power of Attorney Ex. PW3/1 and the Will Ex. P1 were duly
executed by the deceased Sh. Sohan Singh. The Power of
Attorney is after all a registered Power of Attorney, and more
importantly, the original title documents of the subject
property are in the possession of the respondent No. 1 and
which would not have been, if there was not to be any transfer of title in the suit property. Merely because two views are possible, this court would not interfere with one possible and plausible view which is taken by the court below, unless such view causes grave injustice. In my opinion, in fact, grave injustice will be caused not to the objectors/appellants but to the respondent No. 1 her father inlaw Sh. Sewa Singh, if the impugned judgment is set aside."
In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
CS No. 273/14 page 8 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. '' 8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case visa vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit " preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
In the cases of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729 and Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, it has been held that a civil case is to be decided on balance of probabilities
11. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines " burden of proof"
which is reproduced as below: " 101. Burden of proof whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of
CS No. 273/14 page 9 of 19
Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Section 101 of the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been liable to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party.
12. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The specific performance is an equitable relief and Section 20 of the Act preserves judicial discretion. The relief U/S 20 is not automatic as the Court is required to see the totality of the circumstances which are to be assessed by the Court in the light of facts and circumstances of each case. The party who seek specific performance being an equitable relief must come to the court with clean hands and while exercising the discretion, the court would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, the conduct of parties and the motive behind the litigation.
13. In a suit for Specific Performance, the plaintiff has to prove a valid sale agreement; the breach of the contract by the defendant and readiness and CS No. 273/14 page 10 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The relevant provision of law i.e. Section 16 (c ) of the Specific Relief Acts mandates readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff as a condition precedent to seek specific performance. Section 16 (c ) is reproduced hereunder: " Section 16. Personal bars to relief Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person XXX XXX XXX ( C) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation. For the purposes of clause ( c ), where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction."
14. As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA No. 83/2007, the readiness and willingness are two separate issues. The former depends upon CS No. 273/14 page 11 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. the availability of the requisite funds whereas the later depends on the intention of the purchaser. The readiness has to be proved by the purchaser by leading evidence relating to the availability of the funds whereas the intention has to be inferred from the various circumstances on record. If there is not availability of the funds with the purchaser, he can be none suited on the ground of non readiness alone. If the plaintiff is able to show and prove the availability of balance sale consideration with him at the time fixed for performance in the agreement, it is an indication of his readiness but his willingness/intention to perform cannot be inferred from readiness alone. It is the duty of the Court to find out which party has not performed his part of the contract and the Court has to take into consideration the human probabilities, ordinary course of human conduct and commonsense to draw necessary inference. The Court has to minutely examine the conduct of the parties in order to ascertain the truth.
15. In N. P. Thirugnanam Vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, ( 1995) 5 SCC 115, the Supreme Court held that the Court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances to adjudge the " readiness" and "
willingness" of the plaintiff. The amount of balance sale consideration must be proved to be available with the purchaser right from the date of execution till the date of decree. The Court upheld the dismissal of the suit for specific CS No. 273/14 page 12 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. performance on various grounds inter alia that the plaintiff was dabbing in real estate business without means to purchase the suit property and the very contract was speculative in nature.
In R. C. Chandiok V. Chunni Lal Sabharwal, (1970) 3 SCC 140, the Supreme Court held that " readiness" and " willingness" cannot be treated as a straitjacket formula. It has to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned.
16. It is noted that the defendant has denied any transaction with the plaintiff and contended that her signature are forged and taken by Om Prakash the tenant/fatherinlaw of the plaintiff against whom the eviction petition has been filed by the defendant. It is correct that this suit of the plaintiff has been filed against the defendant after filing of the eviction petition by the defendant against Om Prakash/fatherinlaw of the plaintiff. The agreement to sell Ex.PW1/1 dated 02.11.2010 relied by the plaintiff is unregistered. It is observed that thumb impression of defendant is affixed on the agreement to sell but it is not noted of which thumb the impression is. The agreement to sell is stated to be signed by three witnesses but none of the three witnesses except PW2/ Harbans Kohli produced or examined by the plaintiff in support of contentions. PW2 Harbans Kohli appears to be interested witness and well acquainted with the plaintiff as well as her fatherinlaw Omprakash with whom the defendant is under litigation in eviction petition. The testimony of CS No. 273/14 page 13 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. the PW2 is accordingly cannot be relied.
17. There is contradiction and dispute regarding the payment by the plaintiff too. The agreement to sell is dated 02.11.2011 which claimed that Rs. 1 lakh was paid in cash to the defendant. On the back of the agreement to sell further payment of Rs. 1 lakh by cash and Rs. 3 lakh by cheque has been noted on 11.11.2010 but no such cheque has been encahsed or payment has been received by the defendant at all. It further appears that the testimony of the plaintiff totally shattered during her crossexamination. Om Prakash i.e. fatherinlaw of the plaintiff is the tenant in the suit property against whom eviction petition is filed. Though the agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1, the plaintiff claimed that possession shall be handed over to her on or before 31.12.2010 . It is noted that when the agreement was entered into, the possession of the suit property was not with the defendant and eviction petition was pending against the fatherinlaw of the plaintiff in respect of the same which was well within her knowledge and even then the agreement to sell was entered into between the parties. It cast shadow on the plaintiff's case itself.
The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and her testimony regarding execution of the agreement was controverted. The plaintiff and her fatherin law are residing together. The address mentioned in the agreement to sell and as deposed by the plaintiff during crossexamination are altogether different.
CS No. 273/14 page 14 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is interesting that on the one hand litigation is going regarding the property and on the other hand plaintiff is entering into an agreement for purchasing the suit property, it do not appears believable. The plaintiff even failed to answer material questions regarding the execution of the agreement to sell, purchasing of the stamp paper etc. The persons allegedly who prepared Ex.PW1/1 i.e. Manmohan Pawar was not produced by the plaintiff before the court. The plaintiff even failed to prove the receipt Ex.PW1/2 to prove the payment, if any to the defendant. Contrary to her earlier version the plaintiff deposed that her husband got the Ex.PW1/1 prepared. The testimony of the plaintiff in view of the inherent contradiction cannot be relied. As noted above the testimony of the PW1 is not much helpful to the plaintiff as the witness also failed to answer the material questions regarding execution of Ex. PW1/1. Plaintiff failed to explain the suspicious circumstances and the question raised regarding execution of the agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1. Neither Om Prakash nor other relevant witnesses were produced before the court to the reasons best known to the plaintiff.
18. It is reiterated that whether the earnest money was paid by cash or cheque is neither detailed in the plaint nor proved. In fact nothing is on record either deposed or proved regarding any payment. No income tax return is placed on record by the plaintiff. Moreover, such transaction, if any in cash is violative of the provisions of Income Tax Act. Section 269(SS) of the CS No. 273/14 page 15 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Income Tax Act prohibits any person from taking or accepting from any other person any loan or deposit in any other way than by cheque or bank draft where the amount is more than Rs. 20,000/. Similarly Section269(T) prohibits the repayment of any loan or deposit other than by way of cheque or bank draft, if amount is more than Rs. 20,000/.These provisions have been extended to loans between two individual as well and in such cases, the Income Tax assessing officer can levy penalty as high on the amount itself. The whole idea behind this clause is to counter act tax evasion. In this case, plaintiff failed to show any reason or ground for alleged transaction in violation of provisions of Income Tax Act. Such payment was not reflected in the income tax return or any records maintained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to gain from the illegal act violating any law of the land.
19. I have gone through the judgment titled as Sanjay Mishra Vs. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & Anr, 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 563 (Bombay) and ratio of the case squarely applies in the facts of this case. The relevant para No. 13 of the judgment reads as under: 13" In the present case, there is a categorical admission that the amount allegedly advanced by the applicant was entirely a cash amount and that the amount was "unaccounted". He admitted not only that the same was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return at the relevant CS No. 273/14 page 16 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
time but till recording of evidence in the year 2006 it was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return. By no stretch of imagination it can be stated that liability to repay unaccounted cash amount is a legally enforceable liability within the meaning of explanation to section 138 of the said Act. The alleged debt cannot be said to be a legally recoverable debt."
20. I have gone through the judgment reported AIR 2008( NOC) 2495( KAR.) which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further the judgment reported as 2009 (107) DRJ 271 squarely applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. The plaintiff has not filed even a single document to show the availability of cash in such large volume along with the source of the same. Further there is no explanation as to why such large sum of money was transacted in cash etc.
21. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2003) 8 SCC 752. As held: Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil of testing of " proved", " disproved" and " not proved" as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the valuation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that makes the difference. In a suit for possession of property based on title, if CS No. 273/14 page 17 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. the plaintiff creates a high degree of probability of his title to ownership, instead of proving his title beyond any reasonable doubts, that would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant. If the defendant fails to shift back the onus, the plaintiffs burden of proof would stand discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title.
The present case being a civil one, the plaintiff could not be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been discharged. In the opinion of this Court the plaintiff has succeeded in shifting the onus on the defendant and therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood discharged. The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.
22. In view of the testimony of the PWs, documents on record, the pleadings of the parties and examining the case of the plaintiff on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, it is established that the plaintiff failed to prove the case and discharge the onus. This court does not find any merit or substance in the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has categorically failed to prove the execution of agreement to sell Ex. PW1/1 along with payment of CS No. 273/14 page 18 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. any earnest money. This court is of the considered opinion that this suit is liable to be dismissed and plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the suit. It is further established that the thumb impression of the defendant on Ex.PW1/1 & Ex. PW1/2 dated 02.11.2010 was obtained by fraud as no detail of the thumb is mentioned therein. The plaintiff further failed to prove any payment of any earnest money to the defendant. The issue No. 1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiff whereas Issue No. 3, 5 and 6 are decided in favour of the defendant. As the testimony of the DW1 is not reliable the defendant failed to prove any receipt Mark A, Issue No. 4 is decided against the defendant.
Relief.
In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, this court of the considered view the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the suit. The suit of plaintiff is accordingly dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 4th day of March, 2015 G. N. Pandey Addl. District Judge02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 273/14 page 19 of 19 Sangeeta Arora Vs. Indrawati