Delhi District Court
Nasreen Bano vs Anees Ahmed on 9 May, 2014
Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey
Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GORAKH NATH PANDEY
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02, (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 60/14
Unique ID No : 02402C0373712013
In the matter of:
Nasreen Bano
W/o Sh. Ghazanfar Khan
R/o R115, Near Usmania Masjid,
Gali No. 21, Brahampuri, Delhi110053 .............. Plaintiff
Versus
Anees Ahmed
S/o Shameem Ahmed
R/o R104, Gali No. 21,
Brahampuri, Delhi110053 .............. Defendant
Date of Institution : 19.11.2013
Received in this Court : 27.01.2014
Date of Arguments : 06.05.2014
Date of Judgment : 09.05.2014
Decision : Suit dismissed
Suit for possession & permanent injunction
CS No. 60/14 1/21
Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed
Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey
Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for possession and permanent injunction against the defendant( her brother) regarding property bearing No. R104, measuring 33 Sq. Yards out of Khasra No. 316, Situated in Gali No. 21, Brahampuri, Delhi 53( hereinafter called the suit property as shown red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint) praying for decree of possession and restraining the defendant, agents, employees etc from selling, alienating, party with possession or creating any third party interest in the suit property alongwith costs of the suit.
2. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff purchased the suit property on 05.05.13 from Mohd. Khalid by virtue of GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, will , receipt and possession letter and handed over the possession of the same to the defendant being real brother as permissive user on 10.05.13. On 20.09.13, plaintiff came to know that defendant is a intended to sell of suit property without any right, title or interest in the same. The plaintiff approached the defendant in first week of October and requested to vacate the suit property and not to sell or part with possession but of no avail. The defendant refused to vacate the suit property and hence this suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
3. Defendant was duly served with the summons but failed to file WS despite opportunities and was proceeded ex parte vide order 27.01.14. The CS No. 60/14 2/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. case was thereafter fixed for ex parte evidence of the plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff filed her affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW1/A and examined herself as PW 1 in support of the case. The witness deposed as per averments made in the plaint and also deposed regarding the relevant documents i.e. site plan Ex. PW 1/ 1, GPA Ex. PW 1/ 2, agreement to sell Ex. PW 1/ 3, will Ex. PW 1/ 4, Receipt Ex. PW 1/ 5 , possession letter Ex. PW 1/ 6, Election I Card Ex. PW 1/ 7 and previous chain of documents Ex. PW 1/ 8( colly). As no other witness was examined by the plaintiff, the PE was closed.
5. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and gone through the relevant materials on records. I have also considered the relevant provisions of law.
6. Having drawn my attention to the pleadings of the parties, testimony of witnesses and materials on records, it is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff has proved her case and the defendant have not right, title or interest in the suit property. It has been proved that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff prayed to pass decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
8. The defendant is brother of plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to have purchase the suit property on the basis of the documents Ex. PW 1/ 1 to PW CS No. 60/14 3/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 1/ 6 as detailed above. As per the plaintiff, the defendants is in occupation of the property with her permission /as her licensee. The plaintiff has filed this suit praying for decree of possession of the suit property and decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
9. The evidence of the plaintiff was somehow on the similar lines as contended in the plaint. It appears that the main issue to be adjudicated remained as to whether the plaintiff can be considered as the owner of the suit property on the basis of the documents Ex.PW 1/ 2 to PW 1/ 6 relied by her. ? This issue appears mainly issue of law.
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. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines " burden of proof" and 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 able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. Further, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or CS No. 60/14 4/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
11. It is appropriate and relevant to note the relevant legal provisions and authorities for proper examination and adjudication of the aspect of ownership of the plaintiff as contended in the plaint.
Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ( ' TP Act' for short) defines ' transfer of property' as under: " 5. Transfer of Property defined: In the following sections " transfer of property " means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself 9 for to himself) and one or more other living persons; and " to transfer property" is to perform such act." XXX XXX Further Section 54 of the TP Act defines ' sales' thus :
" Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or partpaid and part promised.
Sale how made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only CS No. 60/14 5/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. by a registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
Contract for sale. A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."
Section 53 A of the TP Act defines ' part performance ' thus :
" Part Performance. Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty.
And the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any CS No. 60/14 6/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and had done some act in furtherance of the contract.
And the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor b the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof."
Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908: " 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory. CS No. 60/14 7/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 ( 20 of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 ( 8 of 1871), or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 ( 3 of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely
(a) Instrument of gift of immovable property;
(b) other nontestamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish , whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property.
12. It is settled law that title of immovable property above the value of Rs. 100/ can only be transferred by way of a registered instrument as prescribed Under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and by way of documents of sale as recognized under Section 54 of the Transfer of the Property Act. As held in AIR 1969, SC 1316, the documents of which registration is necessary under the transfer of Property Act ( such as under
Section 54 of the TP Act) but not under the Registration Act fall within the CS No. 60/14 8/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. scope of Section 49 of the Registration Act and if not registered are not admissible as evidence of any transaction of acting any immovable property comprise therein and do not affect any such immovable property.
13. As held in 128 (2006) DLT 407 (DB) titled M. L. Aggarwal Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors, : " The petitioner has only produced an agreement to sell, will and a power of attorney and a receipt for payment of money but these in our opinion do not constitute a sale. Under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, Sale of an immovable property can only be by a registered deed. In our opinion, the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the suit property as he has not purchased it by any registered sale deed. An immovable property cannot be purchased by a mere power of attorney or agreement to sell."
The ratio was further reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in AIR 2003, Delhi 120 titled G. Ram Vs. DDA wherein it is mentioned that transfer of immovable property can only be affected by executing a registered documents. Merely making an agreement of sale or execution of power of attorney could not transfer right, title or interest of any immovable property.
14. This court is guided in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Limited versus State of Haryana & Another, reported as 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) in this respect as held, the documents of title relied upon by the plaintiff such as Ex. PW 1/ 2 to Ex. PW1/6 i.e. GPA , Agreement to Sell, Will, receipt and possession letter in her favour would not CS No. 60/14 9/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. confer ownership rights in respect of immovable property in her favour. Hon'ble Supreme court vide order dt. 15.05.09 reported as Suraj Lamps & Industries V/s State of Haryana, 2009(7) SCC (366) referred illaffects of GPA sells or sell agreement/ GPA/ will transfer holding that there cannot be sell by execution of power of attorney nor there can be transfer by execution on agreement to sell and power of attorney and will. It is relevant and necessary to reproduce relevant paras of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps ( supra) reported as Manu/SC/1222/2011 which read as under: Scope of an Agreement of Sell:
11. Section 54 of TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas V. S. A. Kamtam and Anr. (1977) 3 SCC 247, observed: "A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. See Rambaran Prasad Vs. Ram Mohit Hazra ( 1967) 1 SCR 293. The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognized in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, contract for sale is recognized in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the CS No. 60/14 10/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein."
In India the word ' transfer' is defined with reference to the word ' convey'. The word ' conveys' in section 5 of Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership........ ....... that only on execution of conveyance ownership passes from one party to another ..........."
In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre Vs. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (2004) (8) SCC 614, this court held: " Protection provided under Section 53 of the Act to the proposal transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It disentitles the tranferor from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the transferee. Such CS No. 60/14 11/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed in service against a third party"
It is thus clear that a transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance ( sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance ( duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.
12. Any contract of sale( agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance ( deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Section 54 and 55 of Transfer of Property Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property ( except to the limited right granted under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act).
According to Transfer of Property Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter.
Scope of Power of Attorney CS No. 60/14 12/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
13.A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him( see section 1A and section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee. In state of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata MANU/SC/0547/2005 :
MANU/SC/0547/2005 : 2005 (12) SCC 77 this court held :
A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the Principal in favor of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney CS No. 60/14 13/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. is, as is well known, a document of convenience. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powersof Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the done to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The done in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee. An Attorney holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of grantor.
Scope of Will
14. A will is the testament of the testator. It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the CS No. 60/14 14/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. testator directing distribution of his estate upon his death. It is not a transfer inter vivo. The two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the life time of the testator.
It is said that so long as the testator is alive, a will is not be worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time revoke it. If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked. ( see Sections 69 and 70 of Indian Succession Act, 1925). Registration of a will does not make it any more effective.
We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/ conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transaction of the nature of 'GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transaction as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section CS No. 60/14 15/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transaction known as GPA sales.
15. A reference to the aforesaid paras shows that unless there is a proper registered sale deed, title of an immovable property does not pass. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has however reiterated that rights which are created pursuant to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dealing with the doctrine of part performance ( para 12), an irrevocable right of a person holding a power of attorney given for consideration coupled with interest as per Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872( para 13) and devolution of interest pursuant to a will( para 14).The object of giving validity to a power of attorney given for consideration even after death of the executants is to ensure that entitlement under such power of attorney remains because the same is not a regular or a routine power of attorney but the same had elements of a commercial transaction which cannot be allowed to be frustrated on account of death of the executant of the power of attorney.
Therefore, no doubt, a person strictly may not have complete ownership rights unless there is a duly registered sale deed, however, certain CS No. 60/14 16/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. rights can exist in an immovable property pursuant to the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872. There also takes place devolution of interest after the death of the testator in terms of a Will.
16. Section 63 (c) of the Succession Act 1925 requires a will to be attested. Further the same cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. In this regard the in the case of Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal reported in (2010) 14 SCC 266 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:
"17. A careful analysis of the provisions of Section 63 would show that the proof of execution of a will would require the following aspects to be proved:
(1) That the testator has signed or affixed his mark to the will or the will has been signed by some other person in the presence and under the direction of the testator.
(2) The signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the persons signing for him is so placed has to appear that the same was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (3) That the will has been attested by two or more witnesses each one of whom has signed or affixed his mark to the will or has been seen by some other person signing the will in the presence and by CS No. 60/14 17/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the direction of the testator or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of the signature or mark or the signature of each other person.
(4) That each of the witnesses has signed the will in the presence of the testator."
17. As regards the relief of injunction, the injunction is a discretionary relief and its grant of refusal depends upon the circumstances and facts of a particular case. The discretion has to be reasonable guided by judicial principles and law. It must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act enumerates the cases where an injunction will be denied. Sub Section (h) of section 41 mention that when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding, except in case of breach of trust the injunction cannot be granted. Sub Section (i) mention regarding refusal of injunction when the conduct of the applicant or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court. Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act enables the court to grant a perpetual injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of applicant whether express or implied. Meaningly the question is to be examined as to whether there exists an obligation in favour of the applicant and thereafter if the answer is yes, if the case falls within section 41 of the Act, an injunction cannot be granted. It is also necessary to mention that rights and obligation are corollary to each other and the right places a CS No. 60/14 18/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. corresponding duty also for its existence.
18. Section 27 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 casts upon the party, liable to pay stamp duty, an obligation to set forth in the instrument all facts and circumstances which affects the chargeability of duty on that instrument. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes deed of conveyance compulsorily registrable. The transfer of an immovable property can only be by a deed of conveyance and in the absence of a deed of conveyance ( duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transfered. With regard to the legal validity of such documents i.e. agreement to sell, GPA, Will and receipt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2009 SC 3077 has held that such documents cannot create any right in respect of immovable property. The only way a contract of sale can create title to immovable property is by way of a deed of conveyance as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and registered in pursuance of the provisions of Section 17 of The Registration Act, 1908. No such document has been executed in favour of plaintiff.
19. In the present case, plaintiff has claimed title on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Payment receipt, possession letter and the will but the execution of the documents not proved along with the execution of the will. The exception made out in re Suraj Lamps Industries Case ( Supra) is also not applicable in this case. The relevant witness is not produced by the CS No. 60/14 19/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. plaintiff at all to prove the execution of this documents and merely filing of this documents on records is not sufficient to prove the same. None of these documents are registered. Even if these documents were executed in favour of plaintiff, the same would not create any title in her favour. Since there is no registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property in accordance with provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises and not entitled for the relief of possession as prayed in the suit.
20. It is reiterated that plaintiff has not placed on record any documents in support of her contentions regarding prayer of permanent injunction nor filed any documents on records that the defendant was permitted to use the premises as permissive user. Even the executor of the documents Ex. PW 1/ 2 to Ex. PW 1/ 6 is not produced before the court to prove the contentions of the plaintiff. None of the documents relied by the plaintiff are registered nor the plaintiff proved the possession letter Ex. PW 1/ 6 that suit property was ever handed over to her and therefore neither Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 nor Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 is applicable for ownership of the respondent. The law laid down the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 13917 of 2009 titled as Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. is squarely applicable in the facts of this case.
21. Admittedly the defendant is in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff allegedly derived the title through documents Ex. PW1/2 to PW 1/ 6. CS No. 60/14 20/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey Additional District Judge (NE),Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. By no stretch of imagination by virtue of these documents, the plaintiff can be considered as the owner of the suit property having right, title or interest.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussions and referred law, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent cannot be considered having right, title or interest in the suit property. and the documents Ex. PW1/ 2 to Ex. PW 1/ 6 relied by the plaintiff is neither helpful nor sufficient to prove the claim of the plaintiff in the suit. Plaintiff is therefore not entitled for the decree of the possession and permanent injunction as prayed in the suit.
Relief
23. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove her case. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. This suit is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 9th day of May, 2014 Gorakh Nath Pandey Addl. District Judge02 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 60/14 21/21 Nasreen Bano V/s Anees Ahmed