Delhi District Court
Sh. Gopi vs Sh. Pappu on 23 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER-CUM-COMMERCIAL CIVIL JUDGE
(NORTH-EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. : 257/13
Unique Case ID No. : 02402C0326052013
In the matter of :
1. Sh. Gopi
2. Sh. Richpal
Both Sons of Late Sh. Chhotey,
R/o Village Sabhapur,
Delhi - 110 094. .....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Sh. Pappu
S/o Sh. Lala.
2. Sh. Ajab Singh
S/o Sh. Attar Singh,
Both R/o Gali No. 3, Asar Mohalla,
Village Sabhapur,
Near Govt. School,
Delhi - 110 094. ....Defendants
Date of Institution : 05/10/2013
Date of reserve for judgment : 23/12/2014
Date of final order : 23/03/2015
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Suit No. 257/13 Page 1 of 7 pages
JUDGMENT :
1. Suit for Permanent Injunction was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant.
2. It is prayed that the defendants and persons claiming through them may be restrained from causing any interference or hindrance in the construction of the boundary, by the plaintiffs over the Suit property bearing Khasra No. 533, ad measuring 2 Bighas 3 Biswas at Village - Sabhapur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). 2.1 It is stated that the suit property was inherited by the plaintiffs through their father Sh. Chhotey. He was the recorded owner of the suit property. In a family settlement between the father of the plaintiffs and the other co-owners of the suit property, it was partitioned among all of them, the other co-owners have already sold their portion of the land. The suit property is in physical possession of the plaintiffs. It is stated that the plaintiffs have been using the suit property for different purposes.
2.2 In the month of June 2013, the defendants in order to encroach upon the suit property, tried to dig the land comprising the suit property. The plaintiffs immediately intervened and aborted the plan of the defendants. Thereafter, on 08/08/2013, the plaintiffs started digging the land at the suit property and raised boundary wall approximately 1 Ft. high around the suit property.
3. An application under Order 7 rule 11 r/w section 151 CPC, was filed by the defendants, wherein, it was stated Suit No. 257/13 Page 2 of 7 pages that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. In terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported as AIR 2008 SC 2033, the present suit for injunction, is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have to seek declaration of title to maintain the present suit. It was stated that a simplicitor suit for injunction is not maintainable.
4. Reply to the application filed. It is stated that the title of the plaintiffs regarding the suit property, is not disputed. As such, the Judgment relied upon by the defendants, is not applicable to the facts of this case. Sh. Chhotey, father of the plaintiffs, was the recorded owner of the suit property, the same is already partitioned between the father of the plaintiffs and the other co-owners.
5. It is settled law that for deciding the application under Order 7 rule 11 r/w section 151 CPC, only the plan and the accompanying documents are to be seen / considered. In In Anathulla Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy & Ors. 2008 (4) S.C.C. 594, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute or under cloud or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction.
6. The defendants cannot raise any cloud over title of the plaintiff regarding the suit property without bringing his version on record. Same can be done through the Written Statement. In view of this, in the present case, the Written Suit No. 257/13 Page 3 of 7 pages Statement of the defendants has to be considered for deciding the application under Order 7 rule 11 r/w section 151 CPC.
7. In the Written Statements, the defendants have stated that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The suit property has been inherited by the defendant no.1 through his predecessors. The actual owner Sh. Chhotey was the real brother of grand-father of defendant no.1. The said Sh. Chhottey died issueless. The name of the father of the plaintiffs is also Sh. Chhotey. However, he is not the person, who was the recorded owner of the suit property. The family of the plaintiff and the defendants are separate.
8. Arguments heard.
8.1 It was argued on behalf of the defendants / applicants that the father of the plaintiffs was Sh. Chhotey S/o Sh. Amichand, whereas, the ancestors of the defendants, i.e., the recorded owner of the suit property was Sh. Chhotey S/o Sh. Tulsi. In the land record pertaining to the suit property, the name of Sh. Chhotey S/o Sh. Amichand was wrongly entered. Thereafter, vide Order dated 24/03/1995, the error was rectified and the name of Sh. Chhotey S/o Sh. Tulsi was re-entered in the land record pertaining to the suit property. The photocopy of these enteries is on record. Vide Order dated 10/05/1995 also, for the year 1985-86 in Khata No. 112/107 this error was rectified. In view of the Judgment Anathulla Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy & Ors. 2008 (4) S.C.C. 594, the present simplicitor suit for injunction, is not maintainable. The land revenue record of the suit property is in the name of the Suit No. 257/13 Page 4 of 7 pages defendants. The plaintiffs have not produced the latest revenue records to show that the suit property is in their names. It is stated by the plaintiffs that the defendants tried to dig the land of the suit property. This goes to show that even before the filing of the suit, the defendants were raising cloud over the title of the plaintiffs regarding the suit property. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs should have sought declaration of title regarding the suit property. In the present plaint, the plaintiffs are seeking restraining against the defendants seeking the permission to erect the boundary wall around the suit property.
8.2 Written submissions, filed by the defendants perused.
8.3 It was argued on behalf of the defendants that the suit property has been partitioned and the land comprising the suit property, come to their share. In FIR No. 247/09, PS Khajoori Khas, it was held that the plaintiffs are the trespassers on the suit property. It shows that the plaintiffs have possession over the suit property.
9. In rebuttal, the defendants filed the copy of the latest revenue record, wherein, the suit property is shown in the name of Gram Sabha.
10. In the Order dated 20/08/2014, it was observed that the parties were granted time to file the copies of latest revenue record regarding the suit property. On 18/09/2014, the defendants filed the copy of the latest revenue record regarding the suit property, therein, the suit property is in the name of Suit No. 257/13 Page 5 of 7 pages Gram Sabha. Despite repeated opportunities, the plaintiffs did not file any latest revenue record regarding the suit property. Even during the arguments, the plaintiffs have not challenged the copy of the revenue record, filed by the defendants. It is pertinent to observe that the revenue record regarding the suit property, filed by the defendants, is pertaining to the year 2013/14. In Anathulla Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy & Ors. 2008 (4) S.C.C. 594, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the defendants raised cloud over the title regarding the suit property, declaration of title has to be sought by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, a simplicitor suit for injunction, is not maintainable.
11. The ratio of the aforementioned Judgment is that nobody is allowed to seek any injunction with regard to the property where he has not right, title or interest. A person, who is a rank stranger to a property cannot seek any injunction regarding that property. In the present case, despite repeated opportunities, the plaintiffs did not file any latest revenue records to show that they or their ancestors were / are the recorded owners of the suit property. As per the latest record, the suit property is in the name of Gram Sabha. Plaintiffs have not sought any declaration of title regarding the suit property. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiffs is hit by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., Anathulla Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy & Ors. 2008 (4) S.C.C. 594. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Suit No. 257/13 Page 6 of 7 pages
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
DT. : 23/03/2015
(RAJINDER SINGH)
ACJ/ARC/ARC/CCJ (NE),
KKD COURTS,
DELHI.
Suit No. 257/13 Page 7 of 7 pages
Suit No. 257/13 Page 8 of 7 pages