Delhi District Court
Chetram vs . Satyawati on 5 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK SHERAWAT, ACJcumCCcum
ARC (SOUTHWEST): DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Civil Suit no:212/13
Chetram vs. Satyawati
05.06.15
ORDER: Present: Ld. Proxy counsels for the parties.
Matter is fixed for orders on the issue whether the suit is maintainable or liable to be rejected U/o 7 rule 11 CPC
1. As per the plaintiff, he purchased the built up property bearing no. RZ10 A (back side) on the land measuring 25 sq. yds (out of total land area measuring 50 sq. yds) out of khasra no. 649, situated at Village Nasirpur, Delhi (hereinafter called the suit property) from the defendant through a registered irrevocable GPA on 08.03.07. The defendant has handed over the possession of only 21.5 sq. yds of the property to the plaintiff and retained the possession of 3.5 sq. yds of the property. At the time of purchase of the property, it was two sided open and there was a common staircase going through the plot of plaintiff. There was a door in the middle of the property for entrance and defendant had assured the plaintiff that she would construct her own separate staircase in her portion and she would be using the existing staircase only till the time separate staircase constructed. The door also falls in the portion of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff is also entitled to 3.5 sq. yds of the property which is illegally in possession of the defendant. Subsequently, plaintiff wants to erect a wall to close the 1 Chetram vs.Satyawati CS212/13 said door to which the defendant and her family members objected and threatened the plaintiff to implicate him in a false case. On 27.09.13, plaintiff lodged a complaint with the police against the defendant and her family.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for injunction against the defendant to restrain her and her family, from entering the suit premises and to obstruct them from closing the door. In my view, the relief claimed by the plaintiff is not complete. It has been admitted by the plaintiff that the defendant has got the possession of 3.5 sq. yds of the property but he has not sought the possession of said portion of the suit property, which is in possession of the defendant. Further, it is not clear as to where the disputed door is located.
4. In case title as Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594 wherein it has been held by the Supreme court:
13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
2 Chetram vs.Satyawati CS212/13
5. The plaintiff in this present suit should therefore also ask for possession. The suit is barred and plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC. Hence, the plaint is rejected.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the court (Deepak Sherawat)
today i.e 05.06.15 ACJ/CC/ARC/DWK/ND
3 Chetram vs.Satyawati
CS212/13
4 Chetram vs.Satyawati
CS212/13