Delhi District Court
Sh.Dhani Ram vs Smt. Satya Dhama on 30 May, 2016
1
In the Court of Ms. Sonam Singh, Civil Judge-05, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS No. 396/14
Unique ID No. 02401C0427082005
Sh.Dhani Ram
S/o Sh. Jagat Narayan
R/o A-42/1, 2nd and 3rd floor,
Cristian Colony,
Patel Chest Colony, Delhi .............Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Satya Dhama
W/o Sh. Shiv Kumar
R/o A-42/1, 2nd and 3rd floor,
Cristian Colony,
Patel Chest Colony, Delhi
...........Defendant
Date of institution: 23.05.2005
Date of final Decision: 30.05.2016
Judgment:
1.The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for three reliefs: Firstly, Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 2 for the relief of permanent injunction in order to restrain the Defendants from dispossessing and/or interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the 2 nd floor, 3rd floor and terrace floor of property bearing No. A-42/1, Christian Colony, Patel Chest Colony, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the "suit property").Secondly, for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to allow the Plaintiff to put a door in the staircase on the second floor of the suit property. Thirdly, for the relief of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, declaring the Deed of Revocation of GPA and Deed of Cancellation of Will both dated 31.03.2005 as null and void.
Plaintiffs' case as per the plaint:
2. The Plaintiff in his plaint has averred that he is the owner and also in possession of the suit property, which is specifically shown in red color, in the site plan. Further, it is averred that he purchased the same for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- vide registered GPA bearing registration No. 1647, Addl. Book No. I, Volume No. 991 on pages 71 & 72, registered Will bearing registration No. 1008, Addl. Book No. 3, Volume No. 338 on page 164, Agreement to sell, Affidavit and Receipt of Consideration, all aforesaid documents, dated 24.01.2003, from the Defendant.
3. Plaintiff has pleaded that the Defendant at the time of selling the suit property had received the full consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-and had also issued a receipt in this respect. Further, it is averred that at the time of execution of the aforementioned documents, the Defendant had Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 3 also handed over the vacant physical possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff and since then the Plaintiff is in the exclusive possession of the suit property.
4. Further, it is alleged that the Plaintiff after purchasing the suit property from the Defendant had given some of the rooms on lease to different persons, mostly who were students from Delhi University, in order to make some extra income. However, subsequently, Defendant started to get good offers for the suit property and thereafter, the intention of the Defendant became dishonest.
5. It is alleged that the Defendant in collusion with her family members and associates, with a malafide intention caused harassment to the Plaintiff and his family members, in order to get the suit property vacated. It is averred that on 15.12.2004, the husband of the Defendant, namely, Sh. Shiv Kumar obstructed the family members of the Plaintiff from using the staircase and when the Plaintiff asked him not to do so, husband of the Defendant started quarreling with the Plaintiff. It is further alleged that this led to the Plaintiff calling the police and which resulted in the husband of the Defendants giving a statement in writing that he will neither cause any obstruction in use of staircase to either the Plaintiff or any of his family members nor fight with them.
6. Further, it is averred that the Defendant initially had allowed the Plaintiff to use the same electricity and water connection, which is installed for the Defendant, but later on when the intention of the Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 4 Defendant became malafide , she discontinued the supply of electricity. It is also alleged that when the Plaintiff tried to get the new connection of water and electricity installed, the Defendant and her associates caused obstruction but after much inconvenience, the same were installed. Further, it is averred that the Defendant also made casteist remarks against the Plaintiff as he belongs to a schedule tribe caste and a complaint in this regard was also made to the concerned commission.
7. It is also averred that in the second week of March, 2005, the Defendant again quarreled with the Plaintiff and his wife with regard to the use of the staircase and the police was called at the spot and now the matter is pending before Special Executive Magistrate, Sarai Rohilla.
8. It is averred that on 07th April, 2005 the Plaintiff received a letter through courier and to the surprise of the Plaintiff it contained the GPA Revocation Deed dated 31.03.2005 bearing registration No. 2208, Addl. Book No. 4, Volume No. 1579 on pages 198 & 199, in respect of the Registered GPA dated 24.01.2003 and Deed of Cancellation of Will dated 31.03.2005 bearing registration No. 2173 in Addl. Book No. 4, Volume No. 1759 on pages 20 to 21, in respect of the Registered Will vide which the Plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the Defendant.
9. It is averred that vide the above mentioned documents the Defendant intends to revoke and cancel the GPA and Will which she had executed in favour of the Plaintiff, at the time of selling the suit Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 5 property to the Plaintiff, after receipt of the total consideration of Rs.
2,50,000/-. Further, it is averred that the Defendant had executed the Registered GPA and Will coupled with Affidavit, Agreement to sell and receipt of the total consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 24.01.2003, which constitute a complete sale. It is also averred that the GPA revocation deed and Will Cancellation Deed allegedly executed by the Defendant on 31.03.2005 have been executed without any notice to the Plaintiff and thus, they are null and void ab-initio. It is also averred that the Defendant has no right to cancel or revoke the sale documents executed by her in favour of the Plaintiff. It is alleged that this shows the malafide and dishonest intentions of the Defendant.
10. Moreover, it is averred that on 22.04.2005 also, the son of the Plaintiff, namely, Arvind Singh tried to obstruct the use of stair case, by one of the relatives of the Plaintiff. It is also averred that he abused the relative of the Plaintiff and took him forcefully into his house and when the Plaintiff tried to rescue him, they threatened him and asked him to vacate the suit property. Further, it is averred that subsequently, Plaintiff filed a complaint dated 22.04.2005 to Police Station Maurice Nagar in this regard but no action has been taken so far by the Police. It is also averred that the Plaintiff has also given a written complaint dated 28.04.2005 regarding the threats and danger to the person, property and family members of the Plaintiff from the Defendant, her family members and associates to the Union Home Minister, Government of India but no action has been taken so far by any of the concerned authority.
Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 6
11. Further, it is averred that on 17.05.2005, the Plaintiff received a notice dated 14.05.2005 from the Defendant, wherein he had again asked the Plaintiff to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property on or before 30th June 2005.
Hence, the present suit has been filed.
Defendant no. 1's case as per her written statement:
12. In the written statement, Defendant has averred the following:
a) That the present suit is not maintainable in the present form as the same has been filed with the ulterior motive to grab the property of the Defendant and the present suit has been filed without any cause of action.
b) Further, it is averred that the Plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and thus, he is not entitled for any kind of discretionary relief. It is averred that the Defendant is the sole owner of the entire property i.e. ground floor, first floor, second floor and the third floor along with the roof rights, as the Defendant has never executed any document, as alleged, by the Plaintiff in his favour i.e. GPA, Will, Agreement to sell, Affidavit etc. It is submitted that the property in question has been transferred by the husband of the Defendant in favour of the Defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/- vide registered GPA dated 10.07.2002, duly registered with the Sub-Registrar Delhi, vide No. 10506 Addl.
Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 7 Book No. IV, Volume No. 814, Page No. 42-43 and registered Will dated 10.07.2002, duly registered with the Sub-Registrar Delhi vide no. 7269 Addl. Book No. III, Volume No. 282, page No. 26 and thus, on the basis of these documents, Defendant is the sole owner of the property.
c) It is averred that the Plaintiff approached the the Defendant to take on rent the 2nd and 3rd floor of the aforesaid property, without any roof rights, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3700/- per month excluding water and electricity charges, duly fitted with water and electricity connections. Further, it is averred that since the roof of the tenanted premises is under the lock and key of the Defendants, there is no question of transferring the same to the Plaintiff.
d) Further, it is averred that it was mutually agreed between Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff shall deposit Rs. 50,000/-
as security with the Defendant which the Plaintiff but he failed to deposit the same and sought time from the Defendant, which she allowed, considering his financial position.
e) It is averred that the Defendant is an old lady, illiterate and taking advantage of that, the Plaintiff took the Defendant to the office of Sub- Registrar, under the pretext of taking her for the purpose of execution of rent agreement and also to pay the security amount of Rs. 50,000/- but by playing fraud, he obtained the alleged documents and has not even paid the security amount of Rs. 50,000/- till date.
Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama
8
f) It is alleged that in the second week of March 2005, the
Defendant asked the Plaintiff to pay the arrears of rent and the security amount but the Plaintiff threatened the Defendant and said that he is the owner of the suit property, by virtue of the alleged documents.
g) It is further pleaded that the Defendant immediately on 28.03.2005 made a complaint to the Police station and went to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi and got cancelled the alleged documents, namely, GPA, Will, Agreement to sell etc.
h) It is also alleged that he served a legal notice upon the Plaintiff whereby he asked the Plaintiff to hand over the vacant possession of the said suit property and pay the arrears of rent but to no avail.
i) It is pleaded that the Defendant is filing a counter claim seeking eviction of the Plaintiff from the suit property and arrears of rent that is October 2002 to April 2005 amounting to Rs. 1,16,400/- approx. along with an interest @ 15% per annum.
Replication
13. In the replication, the plaintiff has reaffirmed the stand taken by him in his plaint and denied the averments made by the Defendant.
14. Issues were framed on 29.08.2011. The following issues were framed as given below:
1) Whether the alleged document i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 9 Will etc have been got executed by the Plaintiff by committing a fraud upon the Defendant? OPD
2) Whether the Plaintiff was a tenant of the Defendant, if so, its effect? OPD
3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP
4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP
5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration, as prayed? OPP
6) Whether the Defendant is entitled for recovery of possession, as prayed? OPD
7) Whether the Defendant is entitled for arrears of rent and mesne profit, as prayed? OPD
8) Relief.
Evidence on behalf of Plaintiffss:
15. PW-1 Sh. Dhani Ram, the Plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box and was examined-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:
Sr. No Exhibit/Mark Nature of Documents
1. Ex. PW 1/1 Site plan
2. Ex. PW-1/2 GPA, Will, Affidavit and (Colly) Agreement to sell executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff
3. Ex. PW-1/3 GPA, Will, Affidavit and (Colly) Agreement to sell executed by the Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 10 Defendant's husband in favour of the Defendant
4. Ex. PW-1/4 Complaint dated 18.01.2005
5. Ex. PW-1/5 Complaint dated 15.01.2005
6. Ex. PW-1/6 Water bill dated 29.03.2005
7. Ex. PW-1/7 Telephone bill
8. Ex. PW-1/8 Electricity bill
9. Ex. PW-1/9 Complaint dated 26.02.2005 to the Natioanl Schedule Caste and Tribes Commission
10. Ex. PW-1/10 Postal receipt of the Ex PW-1/9
11. Ex. PW-1/11 & Summons proceedings u/s 107/111 Ex PW-1/12
12. Ex. PW-1/13 Cancellation of GPA executed dated 31.03.2005
13. Ex. PW-1/14 Cancellation of will executed dated 31.03.2005
14. Ex. PW-1/15 Envelope through which Ex PW-
1/13 and Ex PW-1/14
15. Ex. PW-1/16 Complaint dated 22.04.2005 to SHO, PS Maurice Nagar
16. Ex. PW-1/17 Complaint dated 28.04.2005 to Ministry of Home Affairs
17. Ex. PW-1/18 Acknowledgment of Ex PW-1/17 Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 11
18. Ex. PW-1/19 Notice dated 16.05.2005 sent by Defendant
19. Ex. PW-1/20 Envelope to the said notice
20. Ex. PW-1/21 Bill of NDPL dated 04.10.2004
21. Ex. PW-1/22 Water bill dated 10.12.2004
22. Ex. PW-1/23 The proof of installation of electricity connection PW-1, Sh. Dhani Ram, was duly cross examined by Defence Counsel.
16. The Plaintiffs further brought the affidavit of PW-2, Sh. Ram Shiromani. He was duly cross examined by Defence counsel.
17. Further, Plaintiff brought PW-3, Sh. Ram Phool Meena, LDC from Registrar , Kashmere Gate, Delhi whose PW number should have been PW-3 but may be due to an oversight, it is mentioned as PW-2. He Placed PW-3/A i.e. Original GPA is already on record. Additionally, Ex PW-3/B i.e. copy of GPA. He was duly cross examined by Defence Counsel.
18. Further, Plaintiff brought PW-4, Sh. Swami Nath, Officer from NDPL. He Placed PW-4/A i.e. photocopy of K. No. 31805035234. He was duly cross examined by Defence Counsel.
19. I have gone through the record minutely and based on the Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 12 evidence and arguments held before this court, the issue wise finding in this matter is as under: There was a counterclaim also filed by the Defendant but that was never pursued, thus the same stands dismisses in default for non-prosecution.
20. My findings on the issues are as under.
21. Issue no. 1) Whether the alleged document i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will etc have been got executed by the Plaintiff by committing a fraud upon the Defendant? OPD The onus to prove this issue was on the Defendant. The Defendant had admitted to the execution of the aforesaid documents and thus, he had to show as to how the fraud was exercised by the Plaintiff upon the Defendant. It is settled law that the burden lies on a person who challenges the validity of transaction on the ground of fraud etc. In the present case, the Defendant is required to prove by cogent evidence that the disputed transaction is the result of fraud. Except for a bald averment made in the written statement that the Plaintiff took advantage of the Defendant's old age and illiteracy by taking her to the office of Sub- Registrar, under the pretext of taking her for the purpose of execution of rent agreement and played fraud, by obtaining the alleged documents, no evidence has been brought on record.
22. Further, in the decision of Privy Council in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh (1927) 29 BOMLR 1392 wherein it has been observed as under:
Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 13 "It is the bounden duty of a party personally knowing the whole circumstances of the case to give evidence on his behalf and to submit to cross-examination. Non appearance as a witness would be the strongest possible circumstance going to discredit the truth of his case."
The Defendant did not have the courage to step into the witness box and did not lead her evidence and this also raises an adverse inference against her. Thus, the Defendants have failed to prove that the aforesaid documents were obtained by exercising fraud.
Hence, the issue is accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
23. For the sake of convenience, issues no.2 and 7 are taken up together:
Issue No. 2)Whether the Plaintiff was a tenant of the Defendant, if so, its effect? OPD Issue No. 7) Whether the Defendant is entitled for arrears of rent and mesne profit, as prayed? OPD The onus to prove these issues was also on the Defendant. The Defendant did not lead any evidence to controvert the deposition of the Plaintiff or any of the other witnesses brought by the Plaintiff to prove that the Plaintiff was a not the owner but a tenant in the suit property. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the Plaintiff was not a Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 14 tenant in the suit property. Hence, the Defendant is not entitled to the arrears of rent and mesne profits, as claimed for. The defendants have miserably failed to discharge their onus qua this issue therefore issue no. 2 and 7 are decided against the defendant.
24. Issue No. 6) Whether the Defendant is entitled for recovery of possession, as prayed? OPD The onus to prove this issue was also on the Defendant. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the Defendant has failed in proving the Plaintiff to be his tenant. Further, he has also not proved as to in which capacity he is entitled to recover the possession of the suit property.
Thus, issue no.6 is also decided against the Defendant and in favour of the Plaintiff.
25. Issue No. 5)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration, as prayed? OPP The onus to prove this issue was on the Plaintiff. In this regard, it is important to refer to Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (in short "ICA") which provides that the Power of Attorney coupled with interest is irrevocable and cannot be revoked/terminated even upon the death of the principal.
Section 202 of the ICA is reproduced hereunder:-
Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 15 "SECTION 202. Termination of agency where agent has an interest in subject-matter:-
Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest."
26. The Defendant has admitted the alleged registered documents to be executed by her and also the delivery of the possession of the suit property but the moot question is whether the Defendant could revoke/cancel the alleged documents by Ex. PW-1/13 , i.e. Cancellation of GPA executed dated 31.03.2005 and Ex. PW-1/14 i.e. Cancellation of Will executed dated 31.03.2005.
27. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had the occasion to deal with the same question in the case of Kuldip Suri Vs. Surinder Singh 1999 RLR 20. In this aforesaid case, the facts were such the plaintiff executed a Construction Agreement, Receipt, Irrevocable Registered POA, Registered Will, Affidavit, undated letter of repudiation in favour of defendant and accordingly cancelled POA, Will by Cancellation Deeds and sued the defendant for specific performance and possession. The main defence by the defendant was that plaintiff had sold the plot to him and POA being irrevocable and for consideration could not be revoked.
After appraisal of evidence adduced therein, the Hon'ble Court held as follows: -
Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 16 " 21. Before closing the discussion on this aspect of the matter it needs to be noticed that the plaintiff was not legally competent to revoke the registered irrevocable power of attorney in favour of Sardar Saran Singh as the defendants had paid the entire sale consideration to the plaintiff who had in turn handed over possession of the property to the defendants.......... Section 202 of the Contract Act interdicts termination of agency where an agent has an interest in the subject matter of the agency... The power of attorney executed by the plaintiff expressly stated that it could not be revoked by the plaintiff. In the absence of an express contract permitting termination of the agency, Section 202 of the Contract Act barred such termination.
28. Therefore, I hold that the registered deed (Ext. P-3) canceling the power of attorney dated March 6, 1978 (Ext. D-7) is of no consequence and the power of attorney Ext.D-7 in favour of Sardar Saran Singh still subsists.
29. It has also held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shikha Properties (P) Limited Vs. S. Bhagwant Singh and Ors. 74 (1998) DLT 172=1998 (46) DRJ 286, :
" ...that cases where agreement to sell is executed with irrevocable power of attorney and full consideration having been paid would be conveyed by Section 202 of the Contract Act since the purchasers deal with such properties practically as owners for fairly long and have "interest" in it. Thus in such a case agent has a interest in property which is the subject matter of the agency and which cannot be terminated to the prejudice of such interest in terms of Section Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 17 202 the Contract Act..."
30. Keeping in view, the aforesaid legal propositions, it can be safely inferred that if the irrevocable POA with payment of consideration is executed, then such POA creates interests of transferee in the property and such POA cannot be revoked in view of Section 202 of ICA.
31. In this present case, as well, it has been admitted by the Defendant that she had executed the documents Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly) i.e. GPA, Will, Affidavit and Agreement to sell in favour of the Plaintiff for consideration, which consideration was duly received by defendant. Subsequently, the possession of suit property was delivered by defendant to Plaintiff. Thus, it can be safely held that Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly) irrevocable in nature, in view of aforesaid law and Section 202 of ICA, more so, when there is no express contract to the effect in the GPA itself that Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly) cannot be revoked. Further, the defendant did not have the courage to step into the witness box, in order to prove how the alleged documents were revocable. Thus, the Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly) created irrevocable interest in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit property and as such, act of defendant, thereby revoking the GPA and Cancellation Will is illegal being contrary to law.
Hence, the issue no. 5 is accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
32. Issue No. 3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 18 permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP The onus to prove this issue was on the Plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has been able to establish his irrevocable interest in the suit property by virtue of the irrevocable power of attorney and other documents Ex.PW1/2(Colly), the said interest of the plaintiff in the suit property is deserved to be protected.
Hence, issue no.3 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
33. Issue No. 4)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP The onus to prove this issue was also on the Plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has been able to establish his irrevocable interest in the suit property by virtue of the irrevocable power of attorney and other documents Ex.PW1/2(Colly), he has the full right to enjoy the property. Hence, he has the right to put a door in the stair case on the second floor of the suit property, for the purpose of ingress and outgress to the portion belonging to the Plaintiff.
Relief:
In view of aforesaid reasons and discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is disposed off.
A decree for declaration is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and declaring Ex. PW-1/13 Cancellation of GPA Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 19 executed dated 31.03.2005 and Ex. PW-1/14 Cancellation of Will executed dated 31.03.2005in respect of the 2nd floor, 3rd floor and terrace floor of property bearing No. A-42/1, Christian Colony, Patel Chest Colony, Delhi, as null and void. Further, a decree for permanent injunction is also hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant/ family members/ agents/heirs/ servants/ associates/assignees etc., from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over 2nd floor, 3rd floor and terrace floor of property bearing No. A-42/1, Christian Colony, Patel Chest Colony, Delhi, more specifically shown in red color in the site plan. Moreover, a decree for mandatory injunction is also hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/ family members/ agents/heirs/ servants/ associates/assignees etc.,to allow the Plaintiff to put a door in the stair case on the second floor of the suit property, for the purpose of ingress and outgress to the portion belonging to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is also entitled to costs of the suit.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Site plan to form part of the decree. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court on 30.05.2016.
(Sonam Singh)
Civil Judge-05, Central
District Tis Hazari
Courts,Delhi
Present judgment is consisted of 18 pages and each page is signed by Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama 20 me.
CS. No. 396/14
30.05.2016
Present: None.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost. A decree for declaration is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and declaring Ex. PW-1/13 Cancellation of GPA executed dated 31.03.2005 and Ex. PW-1/14 Cancellation of Will executed dated 31.03.2005in respect of the 2nd floor, 3rd floor and terrace floor of property bearing No. A-42/1, Christian Colony, Patel Chest Colony, Delhi, as null and void. Further, a decree for permanent injunction is also hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant/ family members/ agents/heirs/ servants/ associates/assignees etc., from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over 2nd floor, 3rd floor and terrace floor of property bearing No. A-42/1, Christian Colony, Patel Chest Colony, Delhi, more specifically shown in red color in the site plan. Moreover, a decree for mandatory injunction is also hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/ family members/ agents/heirs/ servants/ associates/assignees etc.,to allow the Plaintiff to put a door in the stair case on the second floor of the suit property, for the purpose of ingress and outgress to the portion belonging to the Plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Site plan to form part of the decree. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
( Sonam Singh )
Civil Judge-05, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama
21
30.05.2016
Suit No. 396/14 Sh. Dhani Ram Vs. Satya Dhama