Delhi District Court
Harish Bhardwaj vs Saraswati on 25 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PERVEEN,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE04, SOUTHEAST, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Ms. Neelofer Abida Perveen, ADJ04
Old Suit No.
Case no. 20266/16
In the matter of:
Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandhak
Sudhar Committee (through its Secretary)
Shri Kalkaji Mandir, Kalkaji, New Delhi
Harish Bhardwaj
S/o Late Jai Swaroop Bhardwaj
R/o 359/1, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi110017 ..........Plaintiffs.
Vs
Saraswati
W/o Sh. Ram Bral
R/o Illegal Occupant in
Dharamshala Kalkaji Mandir,
Adjacent to Gote Wali Dharamshala
Near Sri kalkaji Temple Shrine
Kalkaji Mandir, New Delhi .........Defendant.
Date of institution : 04.06.2016
Date on which order was reserved : 10.03.2017
Date of pronouncement of the order : 25.04.2017
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, I shall decide the appeal U/s 96 R/w
Section 151 CPC for setting aside Judgment and Decree dated
CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 1 of 18
09.05.2016 passed by the Court of Ms. Prabhdeep Kaur, Civil Judge,
South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 201/2013.
1. The plaintiff is in appeal against the dismissal of the suit of
permanent injunction filed by plaintiff seeking directions against the
defendantrespondent thereby restraining the defendantrespondent
from installing any stallshop and encroaching, creating, nuisance and trespassing in the passage, dharamshala, chabutra of land of the temple Sri Kalkaji which is in the name of Shamlat Thok Brahmins and Thok Jogians bearing Khasra No. 626 min, 630 min, 1202/627, 633 min and 624, 625, 626 min, 1201/627, 630 min, 633 min + 1203/607, measuring 356 bighas & biswas.
2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for the purposes of the present appeal are that the appellant as plaintiff had instituted a Civil suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendantrespondent on a set of facts that the plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is formed by the Pujaries of the temple Sri Kalka ji to look after the welfare of the temple Sri Kalka ji in which the members are elected through elections which are held after every three years. The members of the said Committee are pujaries of the temple Sri Kalkaji who perform puja sewa and realize tehbazari as per their turn which commences from Shudi Ekadashi and ends on Shudi Dashmi of every Hindi Calender month. That the defendant is the illegal occupant in Dharamshala Kalkaji Mandir, Kalkaji, New Delhi. That the temple Sri Kalkaji is situated on the land of Shamlat Thok Brahmins and the Thok Jogians bearing Khasra No. 626 Min, 630 Min, 1202/627, 633 CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 2 of 18 Min and 624, 625, 626 Mina, 1201/627, 630 min, 633 min and 1203/627 measuring 356 Bidhas 8 biswas. That within the precincts of temple Sri Kalkaji there are several Dharamshalas, small temples, parking stand, pyasus etc. In temple Sri Kalkaji there is a system prevalent in which there is a Bari system in which the pujaries perform Puja sewa and realize tehbazari and other ancillary profits as per their turn. The land of temple is reserved for the joint use of Pujaries of the temple and for the purposes of the temple alone and it could not be used by any person for his own benefit and it had been decided several times earlier. The defendant is neither the pujari nor authorized by any pujari to install a stall / shop on the land of the temple Sri Kalkaji or in Dharamshala. On 28.02.2012, the defendant opened a stall / shop of Phool and Prasad by affixing Takhat, Tripal in the thorough fare / passage which is also used for emergency evacuation purposes and on the land of the temple Sri Kalkaji which is in the name of Shamlat Thok Brahmins and Thok Jogians. By opening the said stall / shop and by encroaching the defendant has blocked almost half of the passage which is used for emergency purposes and thus encroached, created nuisance and committed trespass on the land of temple Sri Kalkaji. Also, causing inconvenience in the management of devotees / public at large. That after the opening of Stall / Shop of Phool and Prasad by the defendant the plaintiff and the pujari who is performing puja sewa as per his right requested the defendant to remove the stall / shop which has created hindrance and thus causing lots of inconvenience in the movement of devotees and management of the temple Sri Kalkaji but CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 3 of 18 the defendant did not give any heed to it due to which a call on 100 number was made by the pujari of temple Sri Kalkaji. The defendant also threatened that the pujaries and the committee members will be beaten up and implicated in false cases. The sons of the defendant are having criminal antecedents and due to which there are always apprehensions of the purjaries and committee members being beaten up. Even after calling police the defendant did not remove the encroachment thereafter the plaintiff filed a complaint dated 01.03.2012 to the DCP, SouthEast District, New Delhi and upto the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and thereafter a complaint dated 03.03.2012 was filed with Chowki Incharge, Police Post, Nehru Place, PS Kalkaji, New Delhi but no action was taken by the police and thereafter deliberations went on going between the pujaries and the defendants and finally with the intervention of devotees as the passage was blocked and there was inconvenience in free movement of the devotees due to heavy rush the encroachment was got removed by the devotees on Sunday dated 11.03.2012. Since then till date the stall / shop was not installed again in the passage but repeated efforts are going on by the defendant to again install the stall / shop in the passage and she is again threatening the pujaries and committee members. The defendant has also forcefully opened the stall / shop of Phool and Prasad. On the footpath on the lotus temple side thereby again encroaching and trespassing. If the stall / shop is opened in the emergency passage which begins from corner of Subhash Piao and goes upto Gote Wali Dharamshala then it could lead to a serious disaster like stampede etc. because there would be not enough space CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 4 of 18 to evacuate the devotees during any kind of emergency and could lead to severe unfortunate incident. The defendant cannot be permitted to create hindrance in the free movement of devotees, management of the temple Sri Kalkaji, encroach, create nuisance and trespass on the land or premises like Dharamshala of temple Sri Kalkaji and accrue any benefits out of the land of temple or premises of Sri Kalkaji without the permission of the pujari who is performing puja sewa and realizing tehbazari as per his rights.
3. Defendant filed written statement taking up the preliminary objections that the plaintiff is registered society of hardly three years but it is taking the issue of the defendant which is more than 35 years. That the so called registered society of the plaintiff is only working for the benefit of some members and it is amassing money and creating hurdles not only for the devotees but the persons who are serving the devotees by selling flowers and pooja materials to the devotees. The defendant Smt. Saraswati is continuing her sewa to the devotees of the temple since her husband was staying with her. Even the defendant is staying in Dharmashala no.1 alongwith her sons and her other family members and they have already won a suit regarding the said dharamshala which was filed by one poojari for kalkaji temple namely Shri Lalit Prasad Gaur. The defendant was issued an Adhar Card based upon her residency at Kalkaji Mandir, Dharamshala no. 1. That the defendant had filed a written complaint before vigilance officer, police headquarters, New Delhi dated 06.09.2004 regarding the harassment of family members of defendant by Shri CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 5 of 18 Deepak Poojari. That some other persons were similarly situated like the defendant who got an order from Additional District Judge on 12.06.2005 regarding non intervention of the police in the day to day affairs. On 14.03.2012, the defendant has given a complaint regarding looting, destroying of shop and badly beaten family members of the defendant to the commissioner of police, New Delhi. On 19.03.2012 the learned Civil Judge Ms. Archana Beniwal in the suit no.66/2012 dated 19.03.2012 has given an Ex. Partee injunction debarring the present plaintiff not to dispossess the defendant from suit premises. But unfortunately on 26.03.2012 the learned Judge has vacated the injunction citing the reason among others that Navratra festival will create problem for devotees. The plaintiff was no locus standi at all since he has not filed any power of attorney/authority letter on behalf of society nor they have filed any documents regarding the registration of society. The present petition has not been filed by the competent person. No license or tehbazari dues are being taken by the so called committee and the statement made in the plaint are false and mischievous and the so called society has been formed by some vested interested persons for accumulation of money and properties of Shri Kalkaji temple and also get privileges and benefits by illegally allowing some of the near and dear ones to sell the pooja materials to the devotees. The defendant is staying in Dharamshala no.1 legally since last 35 years and has won the legal battle. The judgment dated 28.12.1955 and 10.04.1964 are not relevant to the present suit. The defendant are serving the deity Sree Kalkaji by staying in the Dharamshala no.1 and selling of flowers and pooja materials to the CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 6 of 18 devotee. The plaintiff is giving a very wrong averments that the defendant has started a shop only on 28.02.2012 which is totally wrong and absurd, rather the defendant is selling the flowers upto the Hon'ble Court order dt. 26.03.2012. The emergency road is never opened even during the Navratra and the defendant is never hindering with the passage of the devotee since the defendant is only taking small corner place like many other similarly situated persons. The defendant belongs to Orisa and is distressed and her both sons who are staying with her in Kalkaji temple Dharamshala no.1 and are innocent persons. Unnecessary the police in collusion with evil motivated poojari are creating one problem after another. The defendant is staying with her family members in Dharamshala no.1 and is occupying a space that is only "6x4" which is very close to Dharamshala. The defendant has procured the documents pertaining to the Dharamshala by misleading them. Moreover, it has been held in WP (c) No.5251/2010 vide orders dt. 22.11.2011 passed by HMJ Vipin Sanghi of Delhi High Court that no person can stake claim in the property of the Mandir and the same was also confirmed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA No. 11/2012 vide orders dt. 14.02.2012.
4. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 12.04.2013.
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law? OPD CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 7 of 18 (3) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD (4) Relief.
5. The plaintiff has examined Sh. Satish Bhardwaj as PW1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, along with Certificate issued by Registrar of Societies as Ex.PW1/1; Election record is Ex.PW1/2; Letter of authorization as Ex.PW1/3; The khasra girdwari of shamlat thok brahmins and thok jogians as Ex.PW1/4; copy of judgment dated 28.12.1995 passed by Sh. G.C. Jain, sub Judge, Delhi is Ex.PW1/5; Judgment dated 10.04.1964 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Chandigarh as Ex.PW1/6; Complaint dated 01.03.2012 as Ex. PW1/7; Complaint dated 03.03.2012 as Ex. PW1/8; Photographs of the vacant passage as Ex. PW1/9 and Ex. PW1/10 respectively; Order / Judgment dated 22.11.2011 as Ex. PW1/11 and Order / Judgment dated 14.02.2012 as Ex. PW1/12. Plaintiff has also examined Sh. Harish Bhardwaj as PW 2 and Sh. Brij Mohan Bhardwaj as PW3.
6. The defendant has examined herself as DW1 and has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, alongwith documents i.e. Ex. DW1/A, copy of Aadhar Card.
7. My issue wise findings are as under: The Ld. trial court vide judgment/decree dated 9.5.2016 has determined issues no.1 and 3 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and answered issue no.2 in favour of the plaintiff and has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for as a consequence of the findings returned on issues no.1 and 3. Issue no.3 is decided against the plaintiff only as a CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 8 of 18 fallout of the findings returned on issue no.1 and therefore I shall take up issue no.1 for discussion and I shall begin the discussion by first examining the nature of the injunction as is being sought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff seeks a prohibitory injunction against the defendant in the following terms:
"a. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby restraining the defendant, her sons, relatives, employees, administrators, assigns etc. from installing any stall/shop and encroaching, creating nuisance and trespassing in the passage, Dharamshala, Chabutra, land of temple Sri Kalkaji which is in the name of Shamlat Thok Brahmins and Thok Jogians bearing Khasra No.626 Min, 630 Min, 1202/627, 633 Min and 624, 625, 626 min, 1201/627, 630 min, 633 min and 1203/627 measuring 356 Bighas 8 Biswas."
8. During the course of arguments the Ld. counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has restricted the scope of the injunction being sought against the defendant to restraining the defendant from installing any shop stall in the passage and has waived off the blanket injunction being sought against the defendant for raising any shops stall on any portion of the Mata Shri Kalkaji Mandir spanning over 356 bighas and 8 biswas including the chabutra and the dharamshala.
Injunctions are issued towards preventive relief. An injunction is a judicial remedy by which a person is ordered to refrain from doing something, or is ordered to do a particular act or thing. A perpetual injunction is made at the determination of the suit for giving effect to, and protecting rights. A perpetual injunction may be granted CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 9 of 18 to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour and where the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiffs right to or enjoyment of the property a court may grant a perpetual injunction, where there exists no standards of ascertaining the actual damage or where compensation in money would not afford adequate relief and the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. A perpetual injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the applicant, whether expressly or by implication. The obligation may arise from contract, or may be in the nature of a trust, or an obligation the breach of which amounts to a tort or civil wrong or any other legal obligation. An injunction will be granted if it is the only means of enforcing a right and where damages may be an adequate remedy court may not grant an injunction or restrain an actionable wrong. It is not in every case where the plaintiff's right to property is invaded that a perpetual injunction will be granted. Injunction may be granted where the value or utility of the property itself or the very existence of the property, is threatened. There must, however, be a right to, or enjoyment of property. The plaintiff must show his title to property in order to claim injunction. Where he has title, and possession, he is entitled to injunction that his possession shall not be disturbed. Where there is an invasion of the plaintiff's right to or enjoyment of property an injunction may be granted only in the four cases mentioned in clauses (I)(iv) of subsection (3) of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. The preventive relief in the manner of prohibitory, mandatory injunction is discretionary relief and the discretion is guided by the CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 10 of 18 provisions of the Specific Relief and particularly as contained under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act which is reproduced here under: Perpetual injunction when granted: (1) subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
(2) when any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:
a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
b)where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
9. In a suit seeking the grant of prohibitory injunction against CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 11 of 18 the defendant, it is for the plaintiff to establish the existence of the right the infringement of which is to be prevented by way of a prohibitory injunction, or the obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff breach of which is to be plugged by way of a perpetual injunction and the right to property sought to be invaded by the defendant, enjoyment of which is to be secured by restraining the defendant from doing any such act as would interfere with the right of the plaintiff in the property.
The plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act formed by the Pujaris of the temple Mata Shri Kalkaji. The certificate of Registration is tendered into evidence as Ex. PW1/1. Mandir Shree Kalkaji was constructed centuries ago by Raja Kedarnath and is situated presently at Mauja Bahapur, New Delhi, it is the case of the plaintiff that Mandir Shree Kalkaji is spread over 376 Bighas of land.That the Mandir is constructed over land belonging to Thok Jogian Brahmanan "NisfNisf" half share each. Historically there are 2 Thoks of Poojaries (sects groups) who as per custom perform pooja archana in the temple, one being Thok Brahamans and the other being Thok Jogean with further subsects, lines of succession between the two Thoks. Whereas the Thok Brahmans collectively are entitled to a 12 anna share in a rupee in the pooja archana rights and offerings, the Thok Jogians collectively are entitled to 4 annas share in a rupee. The Thok Jogian has two subsects, the Gharbari Jogis and the Avdhoot Jogis. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Pujaris of the temple Mata Shri Kalkaji of any Thok and Thula within the Thok are entitled to a right to offer pooja CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 12 of 18 archana in the offerings and to collect Tehbazari from the stalls / shops installed within the premises of Mandir Shri Kalkaji and ancillary rights.
10. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is an illegal occupant in Dharmashala, however, the suit is not a suit to recover possession of the Dharmshala from the defendant or to eject the defendant from the Dharamshala, the occupation of the defendant of the Dharmshala of the defendant is not the scope of the adjudication at hand. The plaintiff alleges that on 28.02.2012, the defendant had opened a stall / shop of phool and prasad by affixing takhat and tirpal in the thorough fare/passage which is also used for emergency evacuation purposes and on the land of the temple Mata Shri Kalkaji.
11. The plaintiff has relied upon the Khasra girdwari, Ex.PW1/4, as documentary evidence to establish the right of the plaintiff over the property which is sought to be invaded by the defendant by threatening to set up shop/stall. I have perused the Khasra girdwari filed by the plaintiff in respect of village Bahapur whereas thok brahman and thok jogian Nisf Nisf is recorded under Column no.II in respect of Khasra no.626/2/1, 626/2/2, measuring 0 15 biswa and 34 bigha 5 biswa, "sarkar daulat meher", or the provincial government is recorded as the owner in Coloumn no.II in respect of part of the property. From the khasra girdwari relied upon therefore it does not undisputably emerge that the entire 356 bighas 5 biswas as is being claimed by the plaintiffs is thok brahmin and thok jogian Nisf Nisf on the contrary, the khasra girdwari relied upon will depict that part of the land vests with the provincial government. As CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 13 of 18 per the case of the plaintiff, the Mandir Shri Kalkaji is spread over 356 bighas 5 biswas of land. The defendant has not encroached upon the entire 356 bighas and 5 biswas of land but threatens to raise a tripal and a takhta for selling flowers and other pooja material along the passage which is also used for emergency evacuation purposes. Which nook corner of the 356 bighas and 5 biswas of land that the passage alleged to be also used for emergency evacuation purposes exists on is not borne out from the khasra girdwari relied upon or any other documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to prove its own case and the disputed site was required to be depicted in a site plan for the court to arrive at any conclusion in respect of the assertion made by the plaintiff that the defendant seeks to set up a stall/shop along the passage used for emergency evacuation purposes and which falls on the land belonging to Mandir Shri Kalkaji. As has emerged from the khasra girdwari relied upon by the plaintiff himself part of the land is shown under the ownership of the provincial government it was but necessary for the plaintiff to have filed a site plan depicting the factual position on the ground earmarking the passage in question. In the absence of any such site plan there is no material for the court to consider in order to arrive at a conclusion that the passage alleged is on the land of the temple Shri Kalkaji which is in the name of Shyaml at Thok Brahmin and Thok Jogian. It was the duty of the plaintiff to file the site plan depicting the lay out of the land belonging to the Mandir Mata Shri Kalkaji. The plaintiff has sought to rely upon admission made by the defendant deposing as DW1 in the course of the cross examination to the effect that the CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 14 of 18 defendant is running a shop in the premises of Mandir Shri Kalkaji. I shall reproduce the portion of the cross examination relied upon which reads as under:
"I am running the shop with the permission of MCD. The said land on which I am running the shop belongs to Mata Kalkaji."
12. It is the own case of the plaintiff that earlier the defendant was selling flowers and other pooja material after raising a takht and tripal along the emergency passage however this shop was removed by the devotees of the temple on 11.03.2012 and thereafter the defendant is selling the flowers and pooja material from the footpath on the Lotus Temple site. The admission therefore that the defendant is running the shop in the premises of Mandir Kalkaji but with the permission of MCD and that the land on which the defendant is running a shop belongs to Mandir Mata Kalkaji can alone be referred to the shop that is being run as on the date of the deposition which as per the case of the plaintiff is from the footpath leading to the Lotus Temple and the permanent injunction being sought is against running a shop from the passage also used as emergency passage. The witness in the course of cross examination has made a voluntary statement that:
"I have been running my shop on the land belonging to MCD".
This voluntary statement relates to the shop which was earlier being run and was demolished/removed on 11.03.2012.
13. The phool and prasad is, as per the case of the plaintiff being sold by the defendant without raising any permanent structure.
CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 15 of 18It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was selling flowers and other pooja offering articles by raising a takht and tripal along the passage which falls on the land belonging to the Mandir Mata Kalkaji and that the defendant be restrained from raising any stall/shop along the said passage. The injunction, the direction that the plaintiff seeks impinges upon the right to livelihood of the defendant which is an integral aspect of the fundamental right to life and liberty granted under the Constitution. The plaintiff in order to claim a right to the relief as sought ought to have lead documentary evidence by way of filing a site plan to show that in fact the passage along which the defendant threatens to raise a stall/shop/takht/tirpal and sell flowers and other pooja samagri falls within the premises of the Mandir Shri Kalkaji as right of livelihood of a citizen my be regulated but cannot be restricted absolutely. The plaintiff claims that the poojaris of Mandir Shree Kalkaji have a customary right to receive tehbazari from the persons setting up stalls and shops for selling pooja articles from within the premises of the Mandir Shri Kalkaji the existence of a customary right to receive tehbazari is also to be supported in pleadings and evidence having the continuity, uniformity, certainty, notoriety as would be the requirement of law in respect of any customary right. Further even if it is to be taken that the poojaries of Mandir Shri Kalkaji have the right to receive tehbazari or license fee from the shops being run from within the premises of the Mandir, that the defendant threatens to raise a takht and tirpal/stall/shop along the passage which falls within the land belonging to the Mandir Shri Kalkaji was to be established by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff can CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 16 of 18 claim no right to collect any tehbazari from a person selling phoolmala/pooja offerings outside the premises of Mandir Shri Kalkaji customary or otherwise. The right vested in the plaintiff's society, a conglomeration of the Pujaris of Temple Shri Kalkaji is, therefore, the right to restrain the defendant from installing any stall within the premises of Mandir Shri Kalkaji without paying tehbazari to the plaintiff or the Pujaris of the Thok / Thula whose bari it is as per the established custom to offer prayers offerings and collect tehbazari. The society as such has no right to prevent the defendant from selling phool and other pooja articles but has a right to collect tehbazari from the defendant if the defendant sells flowers and pooja articles from within the premises of the Mandir Shri Kalkaji. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the alleged passage used for emergency evacuation purposes falls on/over the land belonging to Mandir Shri Kalkaji. Therefore at the instance of the plaintiff no injunction order can be made restraining the defendant from raising any shop/stall along the passage also used for emergency evacuation purposes. The Ld. trial court has therefore rightly returned the findings on issue no.1 against the plaintiff.
14. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Court of Ms. Prabhdeep Kaur, Civil Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 201/2013. The appeal is therefore dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Trial court record be sent back along with copy of the order.
CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 17 of 18File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in the open Court (Neelofer Abida Perveen) on this 25th April, 2017. Addl. District Judge04, SouthEast, Saket Court, New Delhi.
The judgment contains 18 pages all checked and signed by me.
CS No. 20266/16 Shri Kalkaji Mandir Prabhandak Vs Sarawati Page 18 of 18