Delhi District Court
Shri Suresh Bala vs Shri Akshem Chand on 4 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR: JSCC: ASCJ: GUARDIAN JUDGE
(NORTH EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 417/09
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0317372009
1. Shri Suresh Bala
w/o Shri Angad Ram
2. Shri Angad Ram
s/o Late Shri Karam Singh
(deceased plaintiff through his LRs):
i) Smt. Suresh Bala
ii) Vijayant
iii) Vijay Laxmi
iv) Vijayanti ........... Plaintiffs.
VERSUS
1. Shri Akshem Chand
s/o Late Shri Karam Singh
2. Smt. Alto Devi
w/o Shri Akshem Chand
3. Shri Swadesh @ Tyson
s/o Shri Akshem Chand
4. Smt. Sunita
w/o Shri Swadesh @ Tyson
5. Shri Harshwardhan
s/o Shri Akshem Chand
6. Smt. Rita Devi
w/o Shri Harshwardhan
All r/o First Floor, 1/4055,
Ram Nagar Extn. Shahdara, Delhi32.
......... Defendants.
Date of institution of the suit : 30.10.2009
Date on which order was reserved: 04.06.2012
Date of decision : 04.07.2012
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.
JUDGMENT
The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present suit filed by the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint are that the plaintiff no.1 is the wife of plaintiff no.2 (who is now deceased and his LRs have already been brought on record). It has been further stated that plaintiff no.1 is the actual, exclusive and absolute owner of the property bearing no. 1/4055, Ram Nagar, Extension, Shahdara, Delhi, measuring area 100 sq. yards as per the family GPA and family Will dated 18.03.2009 executed by the deceased plaintiff no.2. It has been further stated that the deceased plaintiff no.2 also executed the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter and Receipt all dated 18.03.2009 in favour of the plaintiff no.1 with regard to the property in question. It has been further stated that previously, plaintiff no.2 was the owner of the suit property as per the GPA dated 29.09.1968. It has been further stated that defendant no.1 is the brother of plaintiff no.2, defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1 and rest of the defendants are the family members of defendant no.1. The plaintiffs have alleged that defendants are in illegal possession of one room at first floor of the said property (hereinafter called the suit property shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint). It has been alleged that defendant no.3 is the son of defendant no.1 and is a convict in a decoity case registered vide FIR no. 278/98. It has been alleged that all the defendants in collusion with each other, have conspired to grab the property of the plaintiffs. It has been further stated that defendant no.1 has been living far away separately since long i.e. since the year 1959 in Railway Quarter no. 116A, Loco Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. It has been further stated that with malafide intentions and motives, defendant no.1 came to the deceased plaintiff no.2 on 22.02.2008 and pretended that his service dues were retained by the Railway authority after his retirement due to occupation of the railway quarter by him and his service dues could be cleared only after the vacation of the railway quarter. It has been further stated that thus, deceased plaintiff no.2 got issued a separate ration card at the address of the suit property after obtaining the No Objection Certificate from the deceased plaintiff no.2 by fraudulent means. It has been further stated that after obtaining the ration card at the address of the suit property, defendant no.1 brought his wife i.e. defendant no.2 on 24.01.2009 and requested the plaintiff no.2 to give him a room at the first floor of the property in question. It has been further stated that the plaintiff no.2 in good faith, allowed the defendant no.1 and 2 to live in the one room at the first floor of the suit property for a month only as a licencee without any licecne fee on humanitarian grounds being the relative of deceased plaintiff no.2. It has been further stated that in the evening of the same day, defendant no.3 alongwith his wife Sunita also came to the house of the plaintiffs and requested the plaintiff no.1 to allow them to serve the defendant no.2 for the operation of her eyes and as such, the defendants started living in the said room on the first floor. It has been further stated that on 25.01.2009, the defendants in collusion with each other got installed an MTNL telephone connection in the said room without consent and permission of plaintiff no.2. It has been alleged that the defendants, thus, in collusion with each other, fraudulently and forcibly trespassed in the suit property of the plaintiff no.1 without any right, title or interest and have been living in the suit property unauthorizedly. It has been alleged that on 29.01.2009, defendant no.1 to 6 criminally assaulted the ailing plaintiff no.1 and caused serious and grievous injuries to her, her children and also to the plaintiff no.2. It has been further alleged that on 01.02.2009, the said defendants put a lock on the room of the tenant Pintu in his absence and on protest by the plaintiffs the defendants gave beatings by kicks and blows to the plaintiffs. It has been further alleged that on 06.02.2009, at about 12 pm, the defendants no.1, 4 and 5 abused and threatened the ailing wife of plaintiff no.2 with dire consequences to kill her entire family. It has been further stated that the police also lodged a kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr. P.C. against defendant no.1, defendant no.3 and defendant no. 4. It has been further stated that in the month of September 2009, defendant no.1 in connivance with the other defendants on the basis of manipulated and forged documents, illegally and unlawfully deposited Rs.42,000/ with the MCD for availing the water and sewerage connection but the plaintiffs raised the objection and then only, the officials of the MCD restrained themselves from installing the said connection. It has been alleged that the defendants are extending threats to keep possession of the suit property on the basis of the forged documents. It has been further alleged that the defendants have also threatened the plaintiffs to create third party interest in the suit property. It has been further stated that the defendant no.1 was merely a licencee for a month only without any licence fee and since the period for the licence has already expired, the defendants are trespassers and liable to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the said room on the first floor of the suit property alongwith damages and compensation @ Rs.2000/ per month w.e.f. 24.02.2009. The plaintiffs have calculated the amount of Rs.12,000 w.e.f. 24.02.2009 till 23.08.2009 @ Rs.2000/ per month. It has been further stated that the plaintiffs are bearing a loss of Rs.3000/ per month on account of the damages and hence the present suit.
On the basis of the abovesaid allegations as contained in the plaint, the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering into the peaceful possession of the suit property more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree of possession with respect to the one room on the first floor of the suit property. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree of Rs.24,000/ @ Rs.3000/ per month on account of the mesne profits.
2. Written statement has been filed on record by the defendants stating therein that the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands; the present suit is without any cause of action; the present suit is barred by section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act; the present suit has not been valued properly. On merits, the defendants have stated that the plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.1 are the real brothers and defendant no.1 is the elder amongst the brothers. It has been further stated that defendant no.1 is residing alongwith his wife (defendant no.2 herein) and other members of his family at the first floor of the property in question. It has been further stated that the first floor and the structure built on the roof of the first floor are in peaceful occupation and possession of the defendant no.1. It has been further stated that the defendant no.1 was employed with Northern Railways in various capacities and from his income earned from his employment, defendant no.1 purchased the plot and thereafter, from his self earned funds, built on the said floor, the aforesaid house which is now known as house no. 1/4055, Ram Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi somewhere in the year 196768. It has been further stated that thereafter, he invited his mother and his younger brother (plaintiff no.2 herein) who were residing at that time in their native village in UP to live in this house and to improve his prospects in life by living in the city of Delhi. It has been further stated that defendant no.1 continued to reside in the official accommodation provided to him by the Northern Railway at Loco Shed, Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi on account of the exigencies of his duties. It has been further stated that the plaintiffs and mother of plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.1, continued to live in the said house and the documents of the said house were also handed over by defendant no.1 to his mother for safe custody. It has been further stated that after his retirement from Northern Railways, defendant no. 1 moved to the first floor of the said house. It has been further stated that the plaintiffs were permitted to live on the ground floor portion of the said house by defendant no.1 as licencees. It has been further stated that the market value of the property in question increased manifold and as such, the mind of the plaintiffs was influenced. It has been further stated that the plaintiffs and their family members started creating mischief in order to falsely implicate the family of defendant no.1 in some serious case. It has been alleged that defendant no.1 has reasons to believe that the original documents of the title of the said house which were entrusted by defendant no.1 to his mother, fell into the hands of the plaintiffs after the demise of the mother and the same were destroyed by the plaintiffs in order to obliterate the evidence of the title of defendant no.1 to the said house. The defendants have denied that plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the suit property. The defendants have alleged that documents in favour of plaintiff no.1 are forged and fabricated because plaintiff no.2 was not having any right, title or interest in the suit property. It has been further alleged that the documents dated 18.03.2009 allegedly executed by plaintiff no.2 in favour of plaintiff no.1 are ineffective, bogus and forged. It has been further stated that the documents dated 25.03.2009 as well, are bogus and forged. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied and it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs.
3. Replication has been filed on record by the plaintiffs reiterating and reaffirming the stand as taken by the plaintiffs in the plaint and denying the contents of the written statement.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide orders dated 20.01.2010.
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed in the suit ? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed in the suit ? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mesne profits/damages @ Rs.3000/ per month as prayed in the suit ? OPP
4) Relief.
An additional issue was also framed by my ld. Predecessor vide orders dated 04.06.2010 to the following effect.
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued ? OPD In order to prove their respective cases, the plaintiff no.1 has examined herself as PW1, plaintiff no.2 has examined himself as PW2, Shri Ilam Chand as PW3, Shri Sahab Singh as PW4 and on the other hand, the defendants have examined defendant no.1 Shri Akshem Chand as DW1, Shri Mohan Lal (brotherinlaw of plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.1 as well) as DW2. The detailed testimonies of these witnesses shall be discussed during the later part of this judgment.
5. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and heard the rival submissions of Ld. counsels for both the parties. The plaintiff and the defendant as well have also filed on record their written final arguments. I have also carefully gone through the written final arguments filed on record by the parties.
6. My issuewise findings on the abovesaid issues are as under:
Issues No. 1 to 3.
All these issues are taken up together as the same are connected interse, overlap each other and relate to the prayer clause of the present suit.
The factual controversy has already been narrated herein above. Now let us discuss the evidence led by both the parties in support of their respective stands.
The plaintiff no.1 has examined herself as PW1 and in her evidence by way of affidavit, she has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiffs in the plaint.
In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that she does not have any bank account individually in her own name but she has a joint bank account with her husband in the Syndicate Bank. PW1 has identified her thumb impression at point A on the Possession Letter dated 18.03.2009. The possession letter has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/P1 during the cross examination of PW1. PW1 has further stated that besides herself, one Shri Surjan Singh and Sahab Singh had also put their signatures on the said document. PW1 admits it to be correct that the suit property has not been sold out by her to anyone. PW1 cannot tell as to whether any money was transferred or not at the time of execution of the said document Ex. PW1/P1. PW1 further states that the suit property was purchased by her husband on 29.09.1968. PW1 cannot tell the age of her husband at the time when the suit property was purchased by him. PW1 further states that she was married with the plaintiff no.2 on 24.06.1974. PW1 has identified her thumb impression at point A on the Agreement to Sell dated 18.03.2009 and the thumb impression of her husband at point B and the said document has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/P2. Similarly the family SPA has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/P3. PW1 further states that she cannot admit or deny the suggestion that on the document Ex. PW1/P1 to Ex. PW1/P3, she had put her thumb impression and signatures at the instance of her husband and she was not aware about the contents of the same. PW1 admits it to be correct that all the abovesaid three documents have been written in English language and she does not know English language. PW1 further states that she was married in the year 1974 and at that time, the suit property was having one room only. PW1 further states that since the year 1974, she alongwith her family members have been residing in the same suit property. PW1 further states that rest of the construction over the suit property have taken place in her presence after her marriage. PW1 further states that she does not know as to what is written in the 14 pages of her evidence by way of affidavit but she further states that her affidavit was read over to her by her Advocate. PW1 further states that the plaint in the suit bearing her signatures at point A and B. PW1 further states she cannot tell the contents of the plaint in English but she can tell the entire story in Hindi. PW1 has denied the suggestion that the property in question was purchased and built up by defendant no.1 from his income as a Railway employee.
Plaintiff no.2 Shri Angad Ram has examined himself as PW2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiffs in the plaint.
In the cross examination PW2 states that he does not know as to whether defendant no.1 has ever been a Railway employee. PW2 further states that he has only heard from the public that defendant no.3 and 4 residing in quarter no. 116 A, Loco Shed Railway colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. PW2 admits it to be correct that there is no registered sale deed in his favour in relation to the suit property. By way of volunteer, PW2 states that whatever documents were being executed at that time, the same have been executed in his favour as well. PW2 further states that he did not obtain any document such as KHATA KHATAUNI or Khasra Girdawri from Shri Godha in relation to the suit property. He does not have any document to show that the alleged seller Shri Godha had any right to sell the suit property or that he himself was the owner of the same. PW2 further states that plaintiff no.1 is merely a housewife having no source of income. PW2 has again said that whenever she is in need, she obtains the amount from her father. PW2 has denied the suggestion that defendant no.1 had purchased the suit property in the year 1967. PW2 has admitted it to be correct that his mother breathed her last while residing in the suit property. PW2 has admitted it to be correct that he has not placed on record any rent receipt in his favour.
The plaintiffs have further examined Shri Ilam Chand as PW3 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, PW3 has stated that the defendants had come in the suit property in one room in the year 2009 for the purposes of getting the operation of the eyes of defendant no.2 done and since then the defendants have been residing in one room of the suit property. PW3 has further stated that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and defendants do not have any right, title or interest therein.
In the cross examination PW3 has stated that he has not seen any documents of title in favour of the plaintiffs. PW3 has admitted that without looking of the documents of title, it is not possible to say for him as to whether the plaintiffs or the defendants are the owners of the suit property. PW3 has admitted it to be correct that his wife and Smt. Suresh Bala (plaintiff no.1 herein) hail from the same village.
The plaintiffs have further examined Shri Sahab Singh as PW4 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has supported the stand of the plaintiffs as taken by the plaintiffs in the plaint.
In the cross examination PW4 has stated that he was employed as an Attendant at Bara Khamba Road branch of the Syndicate bank. PW4 has further stated that thereafter, he earned the promotion but he was reverted back on account of the disciplinary punishment awarded to him. PW4 has further stated that the punishment was given to him on account of his misconduct of having submitted a false academic certificate. PW4 has further stated that his father had put his thumb impression on the documents in the year 1968 and at that time, he was about 1011 years of age. PW4 further states that he does not have even a single document in his possession bearing the thumb impression of his father. PW4 further states that his father expired about 12 years ago. PW4 has amditted it to be correct that there is no document available to verify the claim that his late father had put his thumb impression on the documents referred to by him in his examinationinchief.
The defendants have examined defendant no.1 Shri Akshem Chand as DW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the defendants in the written statement.
In the cross examination DW1 has admitted it to be correct that he has not filed any title documents on record. DW1 has further stated that his mother expired in the month of February 1988, but after the death of his mother, he never tried to find out the alleged documents of ownership. DW1 has admitted it to be correct that he never lodged any report regarding the missing of the title documents. DW1 has further stated that seven rooms have been constructed in the suit property. DW1 has admitted it to be correct that he has not filed on record any document showing the purchase of the material for construction of the suit property, DW1 has further stated that he does not remember as to when the electricity and water connection were installed in the suit property. DW1 further admits it to be correct that the electricity connection was got installed by him in the name of plaintiff no.2 and further that the house tax of the suit property is also in the name of the plaintiff no.2. DW1 further states that when the plaintiff no.2 lodged a complaint against the family members of defendant no.1, then he came to know that plaintiff no.2 got prepared the documents of ownership in his own name. DW1 further states that he has not filed any suit for cancellation of the said ownership documents till that date. DW1 has further stated he does not remember whether he has filed any document regarding the address of the suit property. DW1 admits it to be correct that in his power and possession there is no document pertaining to the suit property of the year prior to 2008. DW1 further states that in the year 1998, he got transferred his previous ration card which was at the address 116A, Loco Shed, Railway colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi to the address of the suit property. DW1 has again said that the said transfer was done in the year 2008. DW1 has admitted it to be correct that the plaintiff Angad Ram had given No Objection Certificate to him for the preparation of the ration card at the address of the suit property and the photocopy of the said No Objection Certificate has been exhibited as Ex. DW1/P1. DW1 has admitted it to be correct that he did not file on record any document, any receipt showing the purchase of any item at the address of the suit property prior to the year 2009. DW1 further states that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion as to whether the tenant namely Mr. Pintoo used to reside at the second floor of the suit property. DW1 has further stated that he cannot tell as to what might be the market rent of the room similarly situated which is in the possession of the defendants in the suit property. DW1 further states that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the prevailing market rent of the similarly situated accommodation was Rs.2000/ Rs.2500/.
The defendants have further examined Shri Mohan Lal (brotherinlaw of plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no.1 as well) as DW2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit he has supported the stand of the defendants as taken by the defendants in the written statement.
In the cross examination DW2 states that he cannot tell the date and month when Akshem Chand had purchased the suit property from Sheesh Ram as mentioned in his affidavit. DW2 further states that the transfer documents were got registered before the Sub Registrar Seelampur, Delhi. DW2 further states that at the time of execution of the documents, he alongwith Akshem Chand had gone to Sub Registrar office and the documents were prepared on the stamp paper of Rs.10/. DW2 cannot tell the name of the Advocate who had prepared the said documents. DW2 has admitted it to be correct that since beginning, Akshem Chand is residing at Loco Shed, Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. DW2 further states in his cross examination that for the last 23 years, he is not having the cordial relations with the plaintiffs. DW2 has further stated that the prevailing market rent of the room which is in possession of the defendants might be Rs. 1000/ per month.
In the written final arguments filed on record by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have argued that the plaintiffs have proved on record all the documents and the fact that the premises in question was given to the defendants in the capacity of the licencee only. It has been further argued that PW3 and PW4 have also supported the case of the plaintiff. It has been further argued that the defendants have not placed no record any title documents and as such, plaintiffs have been able to prove their case.
Whereas on the other hand, in the written final arguments filed on record by the defendants, it has been argued that the documents placed on record, by the plaintiffs are merely the unregistered documents and as such, the plaintiffs have not been able to prove their ownership upon the suit property. It has been further argued that suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. It has been further argued that a person cannot transfer a better title than he himself has and since the plaintiffs have failed to prove on record that plaintiff no.2 was the owner of the property in question, he could not have transfer a better title to the plaintiff n.1 than he himself had. It has been further argued that the documents in favour of plaintiff no.1 executed by plaintiff no.2 are ineffective and bogus. It has been further argued that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove their case on record and as such, it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed.
In the light of the abovesaid pleadings and evidence led by the parties and the argument advanced at bar and filed on record in writing by both the parties, the vital question to be considered by this court is as to whether the plaintiffs have been able to prove that the property in question was given on licence basis to the defendant no.1 or as to whether the defendant no.1 has been able to prove that the property in question was given on licence basis by him to the plaintiffs.
The detailed testimonies of the witnesses have already been narrated herein above. Needless to mention that the defendants have failed to place on record any title documents. In the written statement filed on record by the defendants, defendant no.1 has taken a categorical stand that he had purchased the plot and thereafter, from his self earned funds, he raised the construction. DW2 Shri Mohan Lal in his evidence by way of affidavit has stated that the property in question was purchased by defendant no.1 from one Shri Sheesh Ram but no document has been placed either by DW1 or by DW2 who are the only witnesses on behalf of the defendants. Furthermore, it has to be seen that DW1 i.e. defendant no.1 has categorically admitted in the cross examination that he got issued the ration card at the address of the suit property only after receipt of No Objection Certificate from the plaintiff no.2 on 22.02.2008 which is Ex. DW1/P1. Defendant no.1 has further admitted it to be correct that he has not placed on record any document / any receipt to show the purchase of any item at the address of the suit property prior to the year 2009. Furthermore, it has to be kept in mind that defendant no.1 has admitted in the cross that he had got transferred the MTNL connection in the suit property but he does not remember the date, month or year. From the above said testimonies of the defendants and particularly from the cross examination of DW1, to my mind, it is categorically revealed that the property in question was given by the plaintiffs to the defendant no.1 on licence basis. It has to be further seen that the defendants did not lodge any report about the alleged missing of documents and the defendants have not filed any suit for cancellation of the ownership documents in favour of the plaintiffs. It is true that testimonies of PW3 and PW4 is not reliable. It is also true that PW2 is also shaken in his cross examination to some extent but so far as the licence is concerned, the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is streamline and corroborative to each other. Whereas on the other hand, the defendants have utterly failed to prove the ownership of defendant no. 1 over the suit property or the allegation that the property in question was given to the plaintiffs on licence basis by defendant no.1 as is the stand of the defendants in the written statement filed on record by the defendants. I have no hesitation to hold that if weighed on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, which is the test required in Civil cases, then the testimonies of PWs are more reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring as compared to the testimonies of DWs.
Now let me deal with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendants to the effect that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership over the suit property. I am of the opinion that once the plaintiffs are able to prove that the property in question was given to the defendants on licence basis, then, section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into operation and the defendants are restrained / estoped from challenging the title of the plaintiffs.
Needless to mention that the present suit is a suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the property in question was given to the defendants on licence basis. It is also true that in a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property, the suit property has to be specifically identified. It is also true that no site plan has been exhibited by the plaintiffs but it has to be seen that the categorical stand of the plaintiffs is that defendants were allowed to reside in one room on the first floor of the said property. Defendants have taken the stand that they are in possession of the first floor and the structure built up thereon but I am of the opinion that the defendants have failed to prove their abovesaid stand. The identification of the suit property is not disputed by the defendants even in the written statement. As such, I am of the opinion that the identity of the suit property can be ascertained and as such, the non proving of the site plan by the plaintiff does not go to the root of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the present suit.
In the light of the abovesaid discussion, I hereby decide issues no. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs.
Now to coming to the issue no.3, the plaintiffs have claimed the damages / mesne profits @ Rs.3000/ per month w.e.f. 24.02.2009. DW1 in the cross examination states that she cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the prevailing market rent of the similarly situated accommodation might be Rs.20002500/ per month. DW2 in the cross further states that the prevailing market rent of the room which is in possession of the defendants might be Rs.1000/. Keeping in view the close relation in between the parties to the present suit, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have been able to prove the damages/mesne profits @ Rs.1000/ per month w.e.f. 24.02.2009. Issue no.3 stand decided accordingly.
Additional issue no.1 framed on 04.06.2010.
The defendants have taken the categorical objection in the written statement that the suit has not been valued properly. Perusal of the plaint reveals that no valuation has been fixed, as is apparent from para no.22 of the plaint. The plaintiffs have paid the court fees of Rs.15 only, as is apparent from the stamps affixed on the plaint but it has to be seen that the present suit is a suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants were given the suit property in the capacity of licencee only. It is the admitted position that the plaintiff no.2 who is the hsuband of plaintiff no.1 has already expired. Defendant no.1 is the real brother of the deceased plaintiff no.2. It has been held that in the authorities cited as : (1) cited as 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) page no. 777, 2007 (1) PLR page no. 398 titled as Jagdish Vs. Brij Lal : "Court Fee Act, 1870, Section 7 (V) Injunction suit Suit for possession by way of mandatory injunction against the licensee by cancellation of his licence is maintainable No ad valorem court fee is payable on such a suit."
(2) cited as 1993(1) Civ. C.C. 497: 1993 AIR (Allahabad) 138 titled as Ajab Singh Vs. Shital Puri: "Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sections 38, 39. Termination of license A Suit for mandatory injunction against licence for delivery of possession, filed without undue delay is maintainable."
In the ratio of the above stated authorities, I am of the opinion that the present suit has been valued properly and accordingly this issue is hereby decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief.
In the light of my findings upon the foregoing issues, I hereby pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with respect to one room on the first floor of the suit property bearing no. 1/4055, Ram Nagar, Extention, Shahdara, Delhi. I also hereby pass a decree of Permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining the defendants and their agents etc. from interfering into the peaceful possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs. I also hereby pass a decree for damages/mesne profits @ Rs.1000/ per month w.e.f. 24.02.2009 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with respect to one room on the first floor in the suit property, till the date of handing over of the vacant and peaceful possession of the said room by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly by the Reader after payment of the additional court fees, if any. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court ( RAJ KUMAR)
on this 04th day of July 2012 JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge (NE)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.