Delhi District Court
Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal on 1 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Ms. Prabh Deep Kaur, DJS
Suit No.61/2016
Unique ID no.
In the matter of:
Chander Pal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Dharam Vir Singh
R/o D900, New Friends Colony
Mathura Road, New Delhi
ALSO AT:
105, PocketD
Dilshad Garden
Delhi110095 ............Plaintiff.
Vs.
1. Pradeep Katyal, S/o Sh. Nand Kishore
R/o D890, New Friends Colony
New Delhi
2. Ashok Kumar, Vishal
S/o Not known, R/o E929,
C. R. Park, New Delhi
3. The SHO
P.S. New Friends Colony,New Delhi ..........Defendants.
Date of institution of Suit : 09.02.2016
Date on which order was reserved : 29.02.2016
Date of pronouncement of the order : 01.03.2016
ORDER
1. Vide this order, an application of plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has been disposed off. Plaintiff has filed the suit for CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 1 of 10 permanent injunction with the following prayer:
" pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property bearing no.D900, New Friends colony, Mathura Road, New Delhi without due process of law, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint."
2. In the present suit, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC with the following prayer:
"To pass an adinterim injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants from interfering or creating any hindrance in the use and enjoyment of the suit property bearing No.D900, New Friends Colony, New Delhi shown in red colour in site plan till the final disposal of the suit."
3. Plaintiff's Averments:
3.1. The plaintiff is the lawful owner of the property bearing no.D900, New Friends Colony, Mathura Road, New Delhi, (hereinafter called suit property) which is more specifically shown in red in the site plan attached with the plaint. The plaintiff purchased the same from (1) Smt. Pooja Mahjan W/o Sh. Mukesh Mahajan R/o232, DDA LIG Flat, Pocket2, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and (2) Sh. Virender Kumar S/o Sh. Lachchi Ram R/o C417/A Gali No.19, Bhajanpura, Delhi110053 and also at 232, DDA LIG Flat, Pocket2 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi vide documents registered general power CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 2 of 10 of attorney on 13.01.2016 agreement to sell, deed of will, possession letter and receipt all dated 05.01.2016. Earlier the suit property was in the name of Sh. Ugrasen Narang S/o Late Sh. Bakshi Ram Narang and during his lifetime, the aforesaid Sh. Ugrasen Narang executed a will dated 17.08.2001 in favour of Smt. Pooja Mahaja and Sh.
Virender Kumar. Thereafter, Sh. Ugrasen Narang expired on 20.04.2014 and Smt. Pooja Mahaja and Sh. Virender Kuamr became the absolute owners of the suit property. The plaintiff applied for mutation of the suit property in his name before SDMC, New Delhi and the mutation is under process. The plaintiff has also applied for transfer of the water connection in his name which is in the name of Sh. Ugrasen Narang. In the last week of January, 2016 the plaintiff came to know that the defendants no.1 and 2 have forged and fabricated the documents in respect of the suit property and want to grab the suit property on the basis of alleged forged and fabricated documents. The plaintiff approached the local police by way of complaint against the defendants. But police official have not taken any action against the defendant no.1 and 2 and are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property on the instance of the defendant no.3.
3.2. On 06.02.2016, the defendants along with 5/6 other persons visited the suit property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. On 07.02.2016 the defendants no.1 and 2 again CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 3 of 10 visited the suit property and tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, thereafter, made complaint on 08.02.2016 to DCP Sarita Vihar, against the defendants.
4. Defendant no.1 has orally opposed the interim application of plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff is a land grabber and he is rank one trespasser who has illegally trespassed into the property of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 has filed copy of one will dated 14.11.2012 executed by registered owner of the property i.e. Sh. U. S. Narang who is now dead. As per defendant no.1, the value of suit property is about Rs.1,20,00,000/as shown in the agreement to sell filed by the plaintiff only and thus the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. It has been argued that the suit in present form is not maintainable because plaintiff is relying upon GPA, agreement to sell, etc. and in view of famous judgment of Suraj Lamp, the plaintiff cannot become owner on the basis of these documents and a reasonable cloud has been raised over the title of the plaintiff therefore without seeking relief of declaration as to ownership, simplicitor suit for injunction is not maintainable. It has been further argued that as per plaintiff, plaintiff came into the possession of the property on 13.01.2016 but plaintiff has not filed even a single document to show that the previous owner was in possession of the property at any point of time. It has been further argued that the documents filed by the plaintiff are not reliable and CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 4 of 10 they are liable to impounded as no sufficient stamp duty has been paid before the execution of these documents. Moreover, the defendant no.1 has already lodged FIR against the plaintiff because plaintiff has illegally trespassed the suit property and the investigation in FIR proceedings is still pending. Therefore, no prima facie case lies in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff is not entitled to any interim relief.
5. Defendant no.2 has failed to appear and to address arguments on application of plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Therefore, qua defendant no.2 matter was proceeded ex parte for the purpose of disposal of interim application only.
6. Defendant no.3 has filed status report according to which on 06.02.2016 two PCR calls vide DD no.6A and 7A was received in PS NFC that D900 New Friends Colony Tala Todkar koi saksh factory ke ander baitha hai and D901 New Friends colony makan me kabje ko lekar jhagda. Both the call were marked to SI Santosh Pabri. SI along with beat staff reached on spot and no quarrel was found on the spot. One chander Pal Singh S/o Dharmveer Singh R/o 105, PocketD Dilshad Graden New Delhi along with his care taker namely Naim S/o Shraf R/o 2627 A Block, Gali no.11, Ghari Madnu Bhajanpura, New Delhi and his family were present in the disputed property with house hold articles. They stated that they are the owner and in possession of the property. The caller of both the PCR calls namely Pradeep Katiyal and his son Dhruv Katiyal stated that this CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 5 of 10 property is belong to a NGO and they are in possession. But last night plaintiff illegally entered in this property and disposed them. The property was inspected and took photograph. During inspection fresh marks were found on doors and saw that kundies were broken recently. During local inquiry it revealed that plaintiff Chander Pal & his associates took illegal possession on his property in the intervene night on 05/06 February 2016. Both the parties provided photocopies of their ownership documents which were scrutinized. During the course of further inquiry it revealed that a PCR call vide DD no.17A dated 28.12.2015 was received in PS NFC that 'some persons made forged documents and trying to take illegal possession of kothi no.D900 New Friends colony and one another PCR clal vide DD no. 17A dated 21.01.2016 was received that 'Ten persons trying to breake the lock and entered in H. NO.D900 NFC Colony in PS NFC, New Delhi. Both these call were marked two different IO's and revealed that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant no.1 and 2 having possession on the disputed property. During the treatment, Sh. Ugrasen Narang was dead on 29.04.2014 at Saint Stephen Hospital Tis Hazari Civil Line, Delhi. The creamination of dead body was done by the local police staff of PS Nizamuddin on the direction of concerned SDM. Property being no.G19 Nizamuddin West was also sealed by the direction of SDM, Maa Bagalamukhi Divya Jyoti Sansthan is not exist at G19, Nizamuddin West and 174/4A CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 6 of 10 Patparganj village Delhi. One Smt. Saroj also applied for electric meter in the said house on the basis on another will dated 06.03.2003 in fever on one Sh. Madan Gopal who was executed GPA in favour of one Balwan Singh who further gave SPA to Smt. Saroj. On 21.02.2016 kalandra under Section 107/150 Cr P. against both the parties were prepared and four persons were arrested U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. vide DD no.31A by ASI Kanahiya Lal, On 28.02.2016 a case vide FIR no.72/2016 under Section 448/453/420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC has been registered for further investigation and proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has also been initiated vide DD no.23B dated 28.02.2016 against plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff Chander Pal Singh is entered illegally on the dispute property in the intervening night of 05/06.02.2016 and his age is 52 years and not a senior citizen. The will dated 17.08.2001 is suspicious and requires further investigation.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. It is wellsettled law that a relief of interim injunction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Also, before granting ad interim injunction, the Court must be satisfied that there exists a prifa facie case in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant; that balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff; and that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if adinterim injunction as prayed is not granted. All the three grounds must coexist. CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 7 of 10
9. In the present case, admittedly, one Sh. Ugrasen Narang was registered owner of the property and he died on 29.04.2014 and his cremation was done by the local police of PS Nizamuddin on direction of concerned SDM. The other property of late Sh. U. S. Narang was sealed as per direction of SDM as no LR of late Sh. U. S. Narang was found.
10. Now as per plaintiff, Sh. U. S. Narang had executed a will dated 17.08.2001 in favour of Ms. Pooja Mahajan and Virender Kumar Smt. Pooja Mahajan and Virender Kumar sold the property to plaintiff by way of registered GPA dated 13.01.2016 and agreement to sell, will, possession letter and receipt all dated 05.01.2016. As per plaintiff, plaintiff came into the possession of the property on 13.01.2016 and plaintiff has already applied for mutation of property and transfer of water connection.
11. Now, plaintiff is relying upon one will dated 17.08.2001 executed by Late Sh U. S. Narang in favour of Pooja Mahajan and Virender Kumar. As far as this will is concerned, its genuineness can be determine only after trial and not at this stage.
12. Further, plaintiff is relying upon GPA, agreement to sell, will etc. It is settled principle that an immovable property of value of more than Rs.100/ can be transferred in favour of any person only way of registered documents as per The Transfer of Property Act, 1887. Now, plaintiff cannot claim absolute title over the property on CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 8 of 10 the basis of these documents. The documents have been executed in January 2016, therefore, plaintiff can claim the protection of possession on the basis of part performance under Section 53 A of Transfer of Property Act, if plaintiff establishes that he has been put into possession of the property in compliance of registered agreement to sell but in the present case the agreement to sell is not registered document. Further, the documents have been executed on highly under stamped papers as the agreement to sell has been executed on stamp paper of Rs.100/ only and it is settled principle that the deeds executed on under valued stamp papers are inadmissible in evidence, therefore these cannot be taken into consideration even at the time of deciding the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.
13. The plaintiff has not filed even a single document to show that the erstwhile owner i.e. Pooja Mahajan and Virender Kumar from whom plaintiff alleges to purchase the property were in possession of the property at any point of time. Further, the plaintiff has filed the documents regarding electricity connection which prima facie suggest that even the basis amenities like electricity connection have not been installed in the suit property.
14. Further, a reasonable doubt is cast upon the plea of plaintiff as the registered owner of the property Late Sh. U. S. Narang has died in the year 2014 and his other property is already in custody of Government. Further, though plaintiff alleges connivance between CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 9 of 10 defendant no.1 and 2 and defendant no.3 but the prima facie status report filed by the defendant no.3 suggest that the plaintiff has trespassed into the property and even the documents filed by the plaintiff does not support the plea of plaintiff regarding his ownership. It is settled principle that while granting interim protection to the possessor of property, the Court cannot grant the injunction in vacuum and a trespasser is not entitled to any interim protection because "to be in possession" and "right to continue in possession"
are two different things. Therefore, in view of above discussion, it is clear that there is no prima facie case lies in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, application of plaintiff is dismissed and disposed off accordingly.
Pronounced in the open court (Prabh Deep Kaur)
on this day 01st March 2016 Civil Judge, South East
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS No.61/2016 Chander Pal Singh vs Pradeep Katyal & Ors. Page 10 of 10