Delhi District Court
R/O 342 vs Daya Prasad on 15 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE05 (SOUTH), SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Manika
CS No. 656/10
Unique Case ID No. 02406C0438652010
Hari Shanker Solanki
S/o Late Sh. Tika Ram
R/o 342, HII, Madangir,
New Delhi. ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Daya Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Tika Ram
R/o HII, 342, First Floor,
Madangir, New Delhi. ...DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 10.11.2009
Date of reserving : 08.02.2012
Date of pronouncement : 15.02.2012
Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 1 of 25
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment it is proposed to dispose off the plaintiff's suit for possession filed with the following prayer:
"...
a) pass a decree of possession in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for possession of property bearing no. HII, Ist floor, 342, Madangir, New Delhi. as shown in AnnexureA.
b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant., his legal heirs, agents, attorney and assignee to restrain them from disposing of the property bearing No. HII, Ist floor, 342, Madangir, New Delhi. in favour of any person.
c) Pass any order of direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper to meet the end of justice.
d) Award cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."
FACTS
2. The plaintiff's case, in nutshell, is that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing No. HII, 342, Madangir, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'), which consists of two floors i.e. ground floor and first floor. At present, the plaintiff resides on the ground floor of the suit property and the defendant resides along with his family members on the first floor of the suit property. Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 2 of 25 The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Sh. Ram Kishan for a consideration of Rs.10,000/ and a receipt dated 05.07.1985 regarding the aforesaid transaction had been executed by the said Sh. Ram Kishan in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of two witnesses namely Sh. Babu Lal and Sh. Ram Swaroop. Sh. Ram Kishan being a license holder of the suit property vide allotment No.47 was competent to dispose off the suit property for valid consideration. The defendant, who is real brother of the plaintiff, was allowed by the plaintiff to live on the first floor of the suit property as a licensee along with his family members without any consideration. While initially the defendant had been residing on the first floor of the suit property peacefully, since the beginning of the year 2009, he has become greedy and has developed mala fide intention to grab the property in his occupation without any right thereof. The plaintiff did not wish to keep the defendant and his family members in his property and accordingly terminated his licence to occupy the suit property vide legal notice dated 14.09.2009 served on the defendant. The defendant, however, did not vacate the first floor of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
3. The defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement. Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 3 of 25 He has raised preliminary objections that the suit is barred by limitation and that the plaintiff is not the exclusive title holder of the suit property and as such is not the owner. On merits, the defendant has denied that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. However, the defendant has not denied that while he resides on the first floor of the suit property with his family, the plaintiff resides on the ground floor thereof. He has admitted that the plaintiff is his real brother. He has denied that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from Sh. Ram Kishan at a consideration of Rs.10,000/. The defendant has alleged that the receipt allegedly executed on 05.07.1985 is a sham document. He has denied that the suit property was allotted to Sh. Ram Kishan. He has contended that ration card of the plaintiff does not create any title in his favour in respect of the suit property. It is contended that the alleged licence document does not create any title in favour of Sh. Ram Kishan in the suit property and execution of a receipt also does not create any title to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has denied that he is enjoying the first floor of the suit property as a licensee or that he had been allowed to reside on the first floor of the suit property by the plaintiff. He has contended that late Sh. Tika Ram, father of the parties, had purchased Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 4 of 25 a plot of land admeasuring 25 square yards from one Sh. Pati Ram in the year 1966. He has contended that the father of the parties had raised a building on the said plot and since then the plaintiff and defendant have been in possession thereof with their parents. It is stated that after the death of the father of the parties in the year 1978, the plaintiff joined his mother on the ground floor and the defendant continued to stay on the first floor of the suit property. It is contended that all documents pertaining to the purchase of the suit property by the father of the parties, which were in the possession of their mother, came into the possession of the plaintiff on the death of the mother of the parties since the plaintiff was living with her. It is alleged that the claim of the plaintiff of having purchased the suit property on 05.07.1985 and having thereafter allowed the defendant to occupy the first floor thereof as a licensee stands falsified by the fact that a passport had been issued in the name of the defendant in the year 1984, i.e. prior to the date on which the suit property is claimed to have been acquired by the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendant has been occupying the first floor of the suit property as a coowner after the death of his parents being a successor in interest. It is contended that the defendant has the same right as that of the plaintiff Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 5 of 25 being one of the sons of the owner, i.e. the deceased father of the parties. It is alleged that the plaintiff's claim of exclusive right in the suit property is based on forged and manipulated documents. The defendant has averred that the plaintiff had no right to issue the legal notice dated 14.09.2009 allegedly served upon the defendant.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of the defendant reiterating the contents of the plaint and traversing the contentions raised in the written statement.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
5. On 20.04.2010, the defendant made a statement that he had no intention to dispose off the first floor of the suit property and that he would not dispose it off without permission of the Court. In view of the said statement of the defendant, the learned counsel for the plaintiff did not press his application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.'), which was accordingly disposed off vide order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court.
6. The suit was received by way of transfer by this Court on 29.11.2010.
Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 6 of 25 ISSUES
7. While order dated 10.08.2010 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court recorded that issues had been framed separately, no separate order framing issues was/is present on record. Accordingly, the following issues were framed vide order dated 14.10.2011: "1) Whether the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the suit property? OPD
2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint? OPP
5) Relief."
EVIDENCE
8. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined as many as two witnesses. PW1 Sh. Hari Shankar Solanki, the plaintiff himself, deposed in line with the plaint and relied on the site plan Ex.P1, allotment letter bearing allotment No. 47 and licence No. 42 Ex.P2 (O.S.R.), photocopy of receipt dated 05.07.1985 Ex.PW1/B, ration card in the name of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/D, photocopy of Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 7 of 25 agreementreceipt (IkrarnamaRaseed) dated 10.01.1975 Ex.PW1/E, legal notice dated 14.09.2009 Ex.PW1/F and postal receipt dated 15.09.2009 Ex.PW1/G. PW2 Smt. Chandra Kala, sister of the parties, stated that she knew that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and that he had purchased the same from one Sh. Ram Kishan in 1985. She deposed that the plaintiff had allowed the defendant to reside on the first floor of the suit property as a licensee. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
9. In support of his case, the defendant only examined himself as DW1. He deposed on the lines of the written statement and relied on copy of his passport Ex.D1. No other witness was examined on behalf of the defendant.
FINDINGS
10. The record has been carefully perused. The respective submissions of Sh. H.K. Shekhar, Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiff, and Sh. Rajeev Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the defendant, have been considered.
Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 8 of 25
11. The issuewise findings are as under: Issue No.2: Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
12. The onus of proof with respect to this issue was upon the defendant. However, while addressing final arguments, learned counsel for the defendant did not press this issue. The same has been recorded in the order dated 02.02.2012.
Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the suit property?
AND Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint?
13. The onus of proof qua issue No.1 was on the defendant while that qua issue No.3 was on the plaintiff.
14. The onus of proof with respect to issue No.1 had been placed upon the defendant as his defence in the written statement is that he is in occupation of the first floor of the suit property being coowner of the suit property. However, while the aforesaid may be the defence raised in the written statement, the plaintiff's averment in the plaint Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 9 of 25 being that he is the absolute owner of the suit property, it is for the plaintiff to discharge the primary burden by proving his ownership or other right qua the suit property in order to prove his entitlement to the relief of possession claimed in prayer clause (a) of the plaint. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues are being decided together.
15. The plaintiff's case is that he is the absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same from one Sh. Ram Kishan, who was the licence holder in respect of the suit property having allotment No.47, for a consideration of Rs.10,000/ vide receipt dated 05.07.1985 Ex.PW1/B. The plaintiff was, therefore, required to prove that Sh. Ram Kishan was the original allottee/licence holder in respect of the suit property; that Sh. Ram Kishan was entitled to sell the suit property; and that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Sh. Ram Kishan.
Re: Original allottee/licence holder
16. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred, "... The licence no. of the house bearing allotment No. 47, in the name of Ram Kishan is annexed herewith as AnnexureC and the Ration Card issued by the authorities in the name of the plaintiff is annexed herewith as Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 10 of 25 AnnexureD. Ram Kishan was the License holder of the house in question i.e. suit property and having allotment No. 47. Ram Kishan was competent to dispose of the property on valid consideration and he has sold the property to the plaintiff for the consideration of Rs. 10,0000/.". In his written statement, the defendant has, however, alleged that the suit property had been purchased by his father from one Sh. Pati Ram. In paragraph 3 of the parawise reply in his replication, the plaintiff has stated, "... All the contents with regard to purchase of property by late Shri Tika Ram is specifically denied as wrong. It is specifically denied that late Shri Tika Ram and defendant had purchased the property in 1966 from one Shri Pati Ram.".
17. However, in paragraph 2 of the affidavit Ex.PW1/A, PW1 has deposed, "... The licence No. of the house bearing allotment No. 47 in the name of Pati Ram is exhibited as Exh. PW 1/C ... The Agreement receipt of Pati Ram in the name of Ram Kishan is Exhibited as Ex.PW1/E". Further, in his crossexamination, PW1 admitted, "Pati Ram was allotted the suit property by MCD in the year 1966.".
18. The reference to Sh. Pati Ram in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A is beyond the pleadings of the plaintiff as no reference has been made to any such person in the plaint and, despite his name having figured in Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 11 of 25 the written statement, the plaintiff did not even state anything in his replication either to suggest that Sh. Pati Ram had ever held a licence in respect of the suit property or that he had ever executed any agreementreceipt in favour of Sh. Ram Kishan. It is trite that a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence beyond what has been pleaded by it. The sole purpose of pleading is to bind the parties to a stand. The rationale behind binding a party to its pleadings is that no party can be allowed to take the other by surprise by bringing new facts through evidence unless stated in the pleadings. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Ram Sarup Gupta by LRs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1242: (1987) 2 SCC 555: 1987 SCR (2) 805, Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad AIR 1975 SC 733: (1975) 1 SCC 212 and Prakash Rattan Lal v. Mankey Ram dated 19.01.2010 in CM (Main) No. 976 of 2007 and CM Appl. No. 9855 of 2007, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, the aforesaid statement of PW1 to the effect that there was a licence in the name of Sh. Pati Ram i.e. Ex.PW1/C and that Sh. Pati Ram had executed an agreementreceipt (IkrarnamaRaseed) in favour of Sh. Ram Kishan cannot be read in evidence being beyond the pleadings of the plaintiff.
19. Perusal of the record reveals that there is no document marked Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 12 of 25 as 'Ex.PW1/C', as has been referred to in the affidavit in evidence of PW1. It may have been so because the document so referred to in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A appears to be the same as the document, which already stood exhibited as 'Ex.P2' on 14.10.2011 having been admitted by the defendant as no other document of such a description is present on record. The said exhibit mark has been affixed on the document referred to as 'Annexure C' in the plaint. Thus, the document referred to as 'Annexure C' in the plaint is the same as the document referred to as 'Ex.PW1/C' in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A and actually marked as Ex.P2. However, while in the plaint the said document is said to be a licence in the name of of Sh. Ram Kishan, in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the same has been stated to be a licence in the name of Sh. Pati Ram. Thus, the plaintiff/PW1 has contradicted his own stand taken in the plaint. In order to ascertain as to which of the two versions is correct, it is the document Ex.P2 alone which has to be looked into. The same is a document admitted by the defendant during admission/denial of documents. Perusal of the said document reveals that the same is a photocopy. The photocopy (document Ex.P2) is so poor that the entries therein made in hand can barely be read or even seen. Upon a close look, however, the name of the person Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 13 of 25 in whose favour the document creates a right appears to be 'Pati Ram' rather than 'Ram Kishan'. The original of the said document had been seen and returned at the time of exhibition of the same on 14.10.2011. Order dated 14.10.2011, whereby the exhibit mark 'Ex.P2' had been put on the said document, records the particulars of the document as "Allotment letter bearing licence No. 42 and allotment No. 47 in favour of Pati Ram, s/o Sh. Nanga Ram". Further the endorsement made thereon by the defendant at the time of admitting the aforesaid document reads, "Allotment letter in the name of Pati Ram s/o Nanga by MCD admitted by defendant (OSR)". Thus, it is clear that as may have been seen in the original of the document Ex. P2 the same had been issued in favour of Sh. Pati Ram. It can, therefore, be inferred that it was Sh. Pati Ram rather than Sh. Ram Kishan in whose favour the suit property had been allotted/licenced by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Thus, the averment in the plaint that Sh. Ram Kishan was the licence holder in respect of the suit property to whom the same had been allotted vide licence No. 47 is false.
20. In view of the aforesaid, PW1 has failed to prove the averment that Sh. Ram Kishan was licence holder of the suit property vide document Ex.P2.
Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 14 of 25
21. PW2, the plaintiff's sister, has merely stated in her affidavit Ex.PW2/A that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property in 1985 from Sh. Ram Kishan. She has not stated anything as to who was the original allottee of the suit property. Thus, the testimony of PW2 is of no assistance to the plaintiff to prove that Sh. Ram Kishan was a licence holder in respect of the suit property.
22. What has instead been proved by virtue of admission of the document Ex.P2 by the defendant is that the suit property was alloted/licenced to Sh. Pati Ram by the Muncipal Corporation of Delhi.
Re: Right of Sh. Ram Kishan
23. In paragraphs 2 of the plaint and affidavit Ex.PW1/A of the plaintiff/PW1, it has been stated that Sh. Ram Kishan was competent to dispose off the suit property on valid consideration.
24. While no document in support of the right of Sh. Ram Kishan had been filed along with the plaint, photocopy of an agreementreceipt (IkrarnamaRaseed) Ex.PW1/E was filed later on along with the affidavit in evidence of PW1. No leave had been sought by the plaintiff with respect to the document Ex.PW1/E under Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 15 of 25 Order VII Rule 14(3) of the C.P.C. In the absence of leave of the Court having been sought by the plaintiff, the document Ex.PW1/E cannot be read in evidence in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the C.P.C.
25. Even if leave had been sought and granted to the plaintiff to place the document Ex.PW1/E in evidence, the said document is of no value. Firstly, the said document is a mere photocopy. The original thereof had not even been produced at the time of evidence for the same to be seen by the Court. Secondly, perusal of the same reveals that same is executed on a plain paper. The same being an unregistered document could not have resulted in a sale in view of the provisions of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act.
26. Further, the document Ex.PW1/E has not been proved in accordance with law inasmuch as neither the author thereof nor the witnesses thereto have been examined by the plaintiff.
27. Even otherwise, admittedly the suit property had been allotted to Sh. Pati Ram by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi only as a licensee. Such a right in property is usually nontransferable. Perusal of the licence Ex.P2 in favour of Sh. Pati Ram reveals that the same Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 16 of 25 records that the terms of the licence are specified on the backside of the said page. However, the plaintiff has not filed the copy of the backside of the said licence. In view of Illustration (g) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, since the plaintiff has withheld the backside of the licence Ex.P2, while the same could well have been produced by him, this Court presumes that if produced the same would be unfavourable to the plaintiff. It may have been that the terms of the licence had prohibited the licensee, i.e. Sh. Pati Ram, from transferring the suit property in favour of any person. The presumption is against the plaintiff. Thus, Sh. Pati Ram could not have transferred any right in the suit property in favour of Sh. Ram Kishan.
28. Even assuming that Sh. Pati Ram could have transferred his right in the suit property in favour of any person, it is settled law that no person can transfer a better title than he himself has and, therefore, Sh. Pati Ram could not have transferred ownership right in the suit property in favour of Sh. Ram Kishan as he himself was only a licensee and not the owner of the suit property. Thus, Sh. Ram Kishan could not have acquired title to the suit property. Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 17 of 25
Re: Right of the plaintiff
29. The plaintiff has claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit property. The said right is claimed by him on the basis of document Ex.PW1/B, which is an agreementreceipt (IkrarnamaRaseed) dated 05.07.1985 purportedly executed by Sh. Ram Kishan in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of two witnesses. As in case of the document Ex.PW1/E, the document Ex.PW1/B too is of little value to the plaintiff being an unregistered document executed on a plain paper bearing only a revenue stamp. The same could not have resulted in a sale in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the said document has not been proved as the plaintiff has failed to produce in the witness box either the author of, or the witnesses to, the said document, or even any person who could identify the signatures of either the author or the witnesses.
30. Even otherwise, as already held above, Sh. Ram Kishan could not have acquired title to the suit property. Accordingly, Sh. Ram Kishan could not have transferred title in favour of the plaintiff.
31. Moreover, in the absence of proper proof of the document Ex.PW1/E, the plaintiff has failed to establish a complete chain of Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 18 of 25 right in the suit property. So far as the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are concerned, same are not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property.
32. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner, let alone absolute or exclusive owner, of the suit property.
Re: Right of the defendant
33. The defendant's case is that the plot on which the suit property exists had been purchased by his father Sh. Tika Ram from Sh. Pati Ram in the year 1966 and that Sh. Tika Ram had thereafter raised a building on the same. He claims that he has been occupying the first floor of the suit property in his right as coowner after the death of his parents being one of the successors in interest.
34. The defendant did not file any document to prove the title of his father or himself in the suit property. In his crossexamination, DW1 stated, "Sh. Pati Ram had issued a receipt containing a revenue stamp alongwith allotment receipt. The receipt was on a plain page from a copy. It is correct that I had not filed the copy of the receipt alongwith my pleadings.". The defendant has, however, not even pleaded in the written statement that any receipt had been issued by Sh. Pati Ram in Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 19 of 25 favour of his father or that the allotment receipt (allotment letter) had been handed over to his father. Thus, the aforesaid averment in the crossexamination of DW1 is beyond his pleadings and cannot be relied upon. Further, though it was the defendant's case in the written statement as well that all documents of the suit property were in possession of the plaintiff after the death of the mother of the parties, admittedly, the defendant has not filed any document including receipt as aforesaid in favour of his father. Moreover, admittedly Sh. Pati Ram was only a licence holder in respect of the suit property. As already held above, Sh. Pati Ram could not, therefore, have transferred title in the suit property in favour of any person, including the father of the parties. Thus, the father of the parties could not be said to have purchased or acquired title in respect of the suit property from Sh. Pati Ram and accordingly neither of the parties could have acquired any title in respect of the suit property through their father.
35. The defendant has, therefore, failed to prove that he is coowner in respect of the suit property.
Re: Plaintiff's entitlement to decree of possession
36. Though it has been found that the defendant is not a coowner in Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 20 of 25 respect of the suit property, that does not by itself create any right in favour of the plaintiff to obtain a decree of possession against the defendant. It is trite that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and cannot rest his claim solely on the weakness of the defence.
37. As has already been held above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner, let alone absolute owner, in respect of the suit property. He has not claimed any other form of right in the suit property on the basis of which he can be said to be entitled to a decree of possession against the defendant.
38. While the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that he had allowed the defendant to reside on the first floor of the suit property along with his family members, he has failed to specify even an approximate date or even year thereof. No such date or year have been mentioned in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A of PW1 either. It is for the first time in his crossexamination that PW1 had stated that the defendant is residing in the suit property since the year 1987. In any case, since the plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the suit property on 05.07.1985, the defendant would have been allowed to reside in the suit property only after the date of purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff. However, in contradiction with the aforesaid, the plaintiff has admitted Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 21 of 25 the defendant's passport Ex.D1, which bears the date of issue as 27.03.1984 and his address as that of the suit property. Thus, as per the said passport, the plaintiff was residing at the suit property as on 27.03.1984, which is prior to the alleged date of purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff. It is common knowledge that passports are issued only after due inquiry and physical verification by the concerned authority. The plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to question the veracity of the information recorded in the passport Ex.D1. While a suggestion was put to DW1 during his crossexamination that he had given his brother's (plaintiff's) address on his passport application as he was not having any permanent address, the said suggestion is itself beyond pleadings as it is not the plaintiff's case that he was residing at the suit property prior to 05.07.1985 let alone as on the date of the submission of application form for issue of passport by the defendant. Further, the questions/suggestions regarding the places at which the defendant had resided from time to time, as put on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant/DW1 in his crossexamination, cannot be looked into being beyond the plaintiff's pleadings. Thus, it stands proved that the defendant had been residing at the suit property much prior to the date Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 22 of 25 of the alleged purchase thereof by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had allowed the defendant and his family members to reside on the first floor of the suit property.
39. In view of the aforesaid, the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish a case for grant of a decree of possession as prayed for against the defendant.
40. These issues are decided accordingly.
Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint?
41. The onus of proof qua this issue was on the plaintiff.
42. The only paragraphs of the plaint which have any bearing on this issue are paragraphs 6 and 7. However, all that has been pleaded therein is that the plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from disposing off the first floor of the suit property; and that if the same is not granted, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
43. Perusal of the plaint reveals that there is no averment therein to Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 23 of 25 the effect that the defendant has ever attempted or threatened to dispose off the first floor of the suit property. Even paragraph 9 of the plaint pertaining to cause of action does not contain any reference to any such attempt or threat etc.
44. The plaintiff has, therefore, failed to disclose any cause of action for seeking the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint. Further, in view of the findings on issues No.1 and 3, the plaintiff has failed to prove his locus standi to seek the relief as prayed for in clause (b) of the prayer in the plaint. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to the said relief.
45. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No.5: Relief.
46. In view of the findings on issues No.1, 3 and 4, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
47. The suit is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 24 of 25
48. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 15.02.2012.
(MANIKA) Civil Judge05 (South), New Delhi 15.02.2012 Civil Suit No. 656/10 Page 25 of 25