Delhi District Court
Ranjan Pant vs Kanwal Chaudhri on 5 August, 2024
DLND010166592016
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE- 01,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by :- MS. VIJETA SINGH RAWAT (DHJS)
CS No. 59490/2016 (old no. 1447/2003)
Ms. Kanwal Chaudri
Chaudri House 10-A,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001
Also at:
39, Golf Links
"Garden Floor"
New Delhi-10003
......... Plaintiff
Versus
Shri Rajan Pant
S/o Sh. K.C. Pant
Apartment B- Chaudri House 10-A
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001
........ Defendants
Suit presented On : 24.07.2003
Arguments concluded On : 06.07.2024
Judgment Pronounced On : 05.08.2024
CS no. 59490/2016
Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant
CS no. 59491/2016
Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 1 of 45
DLND010166582016
CS No. 59491/16 (old no. 1453/2003)
1. Ranjan Pant
S/o Sh. K.C.Pant,
R/o 10-A, "B" Portion,
First Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
........ Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Kanwal Chaudri
D/o Late Shri Khazan Singh
R/o 10-A, "A" Portion,
First Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
........ Defendant
Suit presented On : 25.07.2003
Arguments concluded On : 06.07.2024
Judgment Pronounced On : 05.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This Court by this judgment shall decide aforementioned two civil suits which are between the same parties affecting the same suit property (which is staircase well, passage, common entrance, terrace and roof top leading to Apartment B of Chaudri House, 10-A, Curzon Road (K.G. Marg), New Delhi) and as such, vide order dated CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 2 of 45 17.05.2004 in CS no. 59491/16 (old no. 1453/2003) consolidated evidence was recorded.
PLAINT IN CS No. 59490/2016 (old no. 1447/2003)
2. Ms. Kanwal Chaudri filed CS No. 59490/2016 (old no. 1447/2003) on 24.07.2003 averring that she is the absolute and exclusive owner of entire first floor, (except apartment B and one servant quarter on second floor in the staircasewell) and one common servant quarter in the staircasewell, the second floor and mezzanine floor of the main building, second floor of servant's block including terrace thereon, one garage on the ground floor of the servant's block, the staircases and part of porch area of Chaudri House, 10A, Kasturbha Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001. It is further stated that in 1964, in a public auction leasehold rights of property bearing no. 10A, KG Marg admeasuring 1.24 acres was allotted to Dr. Dewan Chand Aggarwal, Smt. Vidyavati and Dr. Mrs. Hardit Khazan Singh Chaudri (mother of the Kanwal Chaudri) jointly. Certificate of Sale and Conveyance Deed dated 01.01.1964 was issued in the joint name of aforementioned persons. Subsequently, L&DO sub-divided the above property in the name of respective co-owners according to their respective shares and mother of Kanwal Chaudri became the exclusive owner of her share admeasuring 1889.2 sq. yds known as Chaudri House. The mother of Kanwal Chaudri died having executed Will dated 07.08.1972 vide which Kanwal Chaudri and her sister Kanwarani Sohinder Nabha, jointly inherited Chaudri House and it was mutated in their name by L&DO vide letter dated 13.07.1978. Conveyance Deed dated CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 3 of 45 26.06.2001 was obtained converting leasehold rights into freehold rights in favour of Kanwal Chaudhari and her sister. Thereafter on 26.06.2001, the sisters executed Memorandum of Apportionment and separate and individual respective shares were demarcated to be owned and possessed exclusively by them. Accordingly, Kanwal Chaudri became the sole and exclusive owner of entire first floor, the second floor and the mezzanine floor of the main building, the second floor of servant's block including terrace thereon, one garage on the ground floor of the servant's block, the staircases and part of porch area. Kanwal Chaudri also states that she became the owner of terrace of the first floor but, the sisters also agreed that in case of any construction being allowed beyond the second floor, it would be shared and owned by both the sisters. As stated, the first floor has two different, independently built apartments A and B. Apartment B without terrace / roof rights with one servant quarter situated on the staircase leading to the terrace of the first floor and one common servant toilet, admeasuring 2250 sq. ft. was sold by Kanwal Chaudri to the Ranjan Pant vide Registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.2002. Kanwal Chaudri asserts that Ranjan Pant was merely given the right to use / avail common entrance, staircase and passages and necessary amenities like electricity and common water connection and Ranjan Pant was permitted to use the terrace to install overhead water tank and TV antenna only over the servant quarter. Relying upon clauses 7, 16 and 241, Kanwal Chaudri states that the ownership of the staircase, 1 7. Both owner (vendor) and purchaser (vendee) will have one key each, of the ground floor entrance door and shall have common rights of the same. However, neither of them shall do anything which may result in obstruction of any kind for joint usage of the common portion aforementioned.
16. The purchaser (vendee) shall not carry out structural additions or alterations of construction to the building layout or cause any damage to the premise as similar obligations would CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 4 of 45 passages, common entrance, terrace and roof remained vested in her. It is her specific case that a site plan was annexed with Registered Sale Deed executed between the parties however, copy of the said site plan was never furnished to her despite repeated demands. In February 2003, as Ranjan Pant wanted to renovate apartment B before shifting in, he requested Kanwal Chaudri to permit him to use the staircase for the purpose of carrying bulky material and other supplies to his apartment and also solicited Kanwal Chaudri use the alternate staircase to avoid dirt and dust. Kanwal Chaudri bonafidely believing the representation of Ranjan Pant and to maintain good neighbourly relations with him acceded to his request, subject to the conditions that the staircase would not be used without any additions and alteration and damage to the walls of the staircase or steps of the staircase, if any, would be removed and that the staircase would be restored back to its original shape. It was also agreed that renovation work would be carried out without causing any inconvenience, disturbance or obstruction to the other occupants of ground floor, first floor and terrace and that construction work would be carried on only between 09.30 a.m. to 07.00 p.m. However, when Kanwal Chaudri was frequently travelling away from Delhi between April - May 2003, the renovation work was found not to be as per the agreement. It is stated that when Kanwal Chaudri returned to Delhi and visited her Art Design Studio on the terrace of Chaudri House, she found that Ranjan Pant had broken the staircase and affixed a steel door from inside the staircase blocking the entrance correspondingly be imposed on other joint/co-owners.
24. That the Vendor has kept the terrace rights of the first floor (top floor). However, Vendee have right to use the terrace to install overhead water tank over the existing servant quarter and TV Antena on as above and the Vendee can clean his water tank and check TV Antenna whenever to be required on the reasonable time of day. The owner of the terrace will not raise any objection to the same.
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 5 of 45 door of Kanwal Chaudri. Kanwal Chaudri protested and demanded that the staircase be restored to its original shape. Kanwal Chaudri also sought that renovation work be finished immediately as on the walls of the staircase, murals and delicate, intricate art work also would require restoration. It is also stated that Ranjan Pant assured that the staircase and art work would be restored and explained that the steel door had been affixed only to safeguard various valuable articles lying in the staircase. Allegedly, on 14-15.06.2003, Kanwal Chaudri was stopped from accessing her Art Design Studio on the terrace through the staircase, by the security guards employed by Ranjan Pant. The steel door was bolted and locked from inside. Therefore, Kanwal Chaudri became suspicious of the intention of Ranjan Pant and started using the staircase, more frequently. Again on 16.06.2003, Ranjan Pant and his security guards harassed Kanwal Chaudri and her Japanese tenant (living in Apartment A) alleging that the tenant had damaged a part of former's property. A letter dated 18.06.2003, was written to Ranjan Pant denying the allegations. Again on 20.06.2003, Kanwal Chaudri wrote an email demanding the copy of site plan from Ranjan Pant and also mentioned about the damage to the staircase but to no avail. Allegedly, again on 21.06.2003 at about 07.00 p.m., Kanwal Chaudri was informed by the security guards of the ground floor occupants that 8-10 workers had climbed on to the terrace and dragged a big generator of 15KVA on the rooftop area. Kanwal Chaudri rushed to the spot and found that the security guards of Ranjan Pant had removed iron grills from the staircase door and created an illegal passage to the terrace of Kanwal Chaudri. It is also the case of Kanwal Chaudri that installation of generator set on roof-over the mumty / staircase was not as per the CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 6 of 45 Registered Sale Deed and Ranjan Pant merely had the right to fix water tank and TV antenna, there. The police was called. A meeting was organized on 23.06.2003 at 05.00 p.m. and it was agreed between the parties that new lock on the main entrance door on the ground floor would be installed and key would also given to Kanwal Chaudri for her use. Yet, even thereafter, Ranjan Pant demolished the main door alongwith the name of Kanwal Chaudri on the main door. Kanwal Chaudri issued letter dated 26.03.2003 to the Chairman, NDMC to ascertain whether any permission had been taken for installation of the generator on the terrace which was replied on 07.07.2003 by NDMC informing that no such permission had been taken and that the act of Ranjan Pant was unauthorized. As despite repeated requests, Ranjan Pant did not give the copy of site plan signed alongwith Registered Sale Deed, Kanwal Chaudri applied for certified copy of the same. On 2 and 3rd July, 2003 Ranjan Pant asked his security guards to throw out antique brass items and expensive carved out decorative pieces belonging to Kanwal Chaudri, from the staircase. The belongings of Kanwal Chaudri were thrown out of the building and the access of Kanwal Chaudri to the terrace was again blocked by bolting and locking the steel door from inside and Ranjan Pant also tried to install video cameras throughout the staircase in total invasion of the privacy of the other inhabitants of the property. Kanwal Chaudri has referred to her foiled attempt to get FIR registered against Ranjan Pant on 03.07.2003 and alleged that on 08.07.2003, she was physically assaulted by the security guards of Ranjan Pant. She has stated that Ranjan Pant had put new tiles in the staircase and replaced the original wooden railings and has taken illegal and forcible possession of the loft CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 7 of 45 in the staircase which was never sold to him. Kanwal Chaudri states that Ranjan Pant has also broken the wall leading to the common toilet and has put another steel door which opens into the staircase adjacent to the main entrance of Kanwal Chaudri on the terrace floor. Allegedly, on 17-18.07.2003, Ranjan Pant has forcibly occupied the main landing ground inside the staircasewell on the ground floor to convert it into a reception. Therefore, Kanwal Chaudri sought permanent injunction to restrain Ranjan Pant from interfering and obstructing peaceful use of the staircase belonging to Kanwal Chaudri to reach the terrace floor, restrain him from carrying on additional alterations or constructions in the staircasewell or use the staircase for purposes contrary to the terms and conditions of Registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.2002, restrain him from installing and energizing the generator set at the roof top above the common servant toilet or any other place, restrain him from illegally and unauthorizedly occupying the area encroached upon by him, direct him to demolish and remove the three steel doors installed by him thereby blocking the terrace entrance of Kanwal Chaudri, illegally encroaching the space next to the common servant's toilet and also providing and opening of common toilet into the staircase, directing him to remove telephones, video cameras, concrete cement tiles, iron railing, entrance door at the ground floor, iron bars protruding out from the ground just before the main entrance at the ground floor and other objects belonging to him and restore the staircase back to its original shape, directing Ranjan Pant to handover vacant possession of the loft in the staircase and remove DG set lying at the rooftop terrace and damages of Rs.5,00,000/- for loss caused to Kanwal Chaudri and mental agony suffered by her.
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 8 of 45 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RANJAN PANT IN CS NO. 59490/2016
3. Ranjan Pant filed a written statement taking preliminary objection that correct site plan as per Registered Sale Deed executed between the parties and registered on 08.07.2002 had not been filed by Kanwal Chaudri.
4. Execution of Registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.2002 has not been denied. However, Ranjan Pant claims that he has the exclusive ownership of Apartment B including the staircase with appurtenants attached therewith and one servant quarter with attached toilet and also right to use the terrace and common toilet as per the Registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.2002. He asserts that staircase being part and parcel of apartment B alongwith two lofts had been purchased by him. He denies that he was only given the right to use common entrance, staircase, passage and necessary amenities like electricity, services and common water connection. It is stated that copy of the Registered Sale Deed was given to Kanwal Chaudri as agreed however, it was not accompanied by any site plan. It is stated that in the suit filed by him (will be referred to later), he had filed a site plan which is the site plan given to him by Kanwal Chaudri, herself. It is denied that Ranjan Pant had any malafide intentions to encroach upon, intrude or forcibly take possession of areas not sold to him. He admits that he had wanted to renovate the property purchased by him but denies that any permission was sought from Kanwal Chaudri and states that he had merely informed her. It is denied that Kanwal Chaudri is running an Art CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 9 of 45 Design Studio on the terrace and that he had blocked her entrance door to her studio by installing a steel door on the staircase. He has alleged that Kanwal Chaudri, herself got removed the window on the staircase and installed a door thereby, converting and using the same as a regular passage with out permission. Ranjan Pant states that during negotiation, it was clearly represented by Kanwal Chaudri to him that what was being sold to him was an independent flat without any hindrance as there was neither any access to the staircase from his staircase nor any construction on the terrace floor. It is denied that Kanwal Chaudri ever sought restoration of the staircase to its original shape. It is his case that being the owner of the staircase, he had protested and demanded removal of the door and usage of the same as regular passage by Kanwal Chaudri and her employees. Ranjan Pant has denied that there were any murals and delicate intricate tribal work on the outer wall of the flat and inner wall of the staircase. He also has stated that he had never obstructed or stopped Kanwal Chaudri from using the staircase but on many occasions requested Kanwal Chaudri not to use the staircase as a regular passage with the sole intention of harassing him and his family and to get removed the steel door got installed by her for the said purpose but the Kanwal Chaudri continued to interfere with peaceful and hassle free enjoyment of Apartment B. Ranjan Pant has alleged that damage to the property was done by the tenant of Kanwal Chaudri which was informed to Kanwal Chaudri and she replied on 18.06.2003, impliedly, refusing to take any steps. It is admitted that Kanwal Chaudri had again demanded copy of site plan through email dated 20.06.2003 but since he had already given copy of the same to the Kanwal Chaudri in 2002, there was no need to so son again. It is CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 10 of 45 admitted that on 21.06.2003, his workers used the terrace to install the DG set on the rooftop of the servant quarter owned by him but the Kanwal Chaudri unlawfully interfered with the said installation and prevented Ranjan Pant from lawful use and enjoyment of the property. It is stated that it was lawful to install 20KV DG set in the area for which permission was required from NDMC for which, Ranjan Pant had applied for the same. He has denied that his security guards removed iron grills from the window to create a secret passage to the terrace. It is denied that on 26.06.2003 or prior or later thereto, he had removed the name board of Kanwal Chaudri from the main entrance on the ground floor. He has stated that being the lawful owner, he got installed a new door as the old door was in a shabby and dilapidated condition for which no permission was required from Kanwal Chaudri. He has also denied that there was any agreement to replace the lock of the door and hand over keys also to Kanwal Chaudri. Incident dated 2-3 July 2003, is denied by Ranjan Pant. Rather, it is alleged that the Kanwal Chaudri stored her items inside the stair case illegally to harass him but later, herself removed the same under supervision of the police. As an owner, he has claimed the right to regulate movement of people in the disputed area for his own security. Ranjan Pant has also pleaded that there are two independent and separate staircases to reach the terrace, one alongwith portion of the property with Kanwal Chaudri and another with her servant quarters. However, still Kanwal Chaudri was interfering with peaceful enjoyment of the stair case owned and possessed by Ranjan Pant by making it a regular passage. He has denied use of force against Kanwal Chaudri on 08.07.2003. He has denied having taken forcible possession of the loft or to have broken CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 11 of 45 the wall leading to the common toilet or to have altered the common toilet or to have occupied the space next to common servant toilet, illegally. He has also denied that on 17-18 July 2003, he forcibly occupied the space adjacent to the stair case well on the ground floor. Allegations of concealment of purported site plan annexed with the Registered Sale Deed have been refuted and on the contrary, Ranjan Pant claims that he is a victim of fraud committed by Kanwal Chaudri who allegedly represented to him that the portion being sold to him is a compact independent portion having only a grilled window in the terrace.
PLAINT IN CS No. 59491/2016 (old no. 1453/2003)
5. Ranjan Pant also preferred a suit (CS no. 59491/16 instituted on 25.07.2003) seeking permanent injunction against Kanwal Chaudri to restrain her from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of property portion B, First Floor, 10A, Kasturba Gandhi Marg. Once again, referring to paragraphs no. 3, 62 and page no. 26 and 273 of Registered 2 3. The VENDEE have the unencumbered right to use only the apartment/portion "B" of the floor, one servant quarter and one common toilet on the terrace of the first floor.
6. The Vendee will have the unencumbered right to use only the apartment/ portion 'B' of the first floor, one servant quarter and one toilet on the terrace of the first floor (mezzanine floor without any hindrance/ obstruction from anyone in respect of the entire property so bought from Vendor and other owners) all its passages, staircases and accessees. The Vendee shall however, have right of access to the terrace in common for inspection etc. 3 Page 26. AND WHEREAS in the manner aforesaid, Ms. Kanwal Chaudri (the Vendor) is the absolute and exclusive owner and in possession of the first floor portion 'B' (adjacent to annexe block) without Terrace/roof rights, with one servant quarter on the terrace of first floor and one toilet measuring approx 2250 sq. ft. as more clearly shown (duly mark red) in the plan attached hereto, of the said property bearing No. 10-A, Plot No.37, Block No. 148, Situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi with all rights, interests, privileges,
27. -appurtenances whatsoever appurtenant and fitting and fixtures, fittings and necessary amenities like services of Electricity & common water connection, alongwith proportionate undivided and indivisible ownership rights/share in the said underneath the said proeprty, together with the rights to use/avail common entrace, staircase, passages, services and facilities provided i the building and easements attached thereto, thereinafter collectively referred to as the said protion of the said property) to the Vendee for a todal sale consideration of Rs.
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 12 of 45 Sale Deed dated 08.07.2002, Ranjan Pant claimed ownership of the staircase and appurtenances, thereto and stated that Kanwal Chaudri had only had the right on rare occasions to use the staircase to inspect her property or carrying out repair work etc. It is his case that there only was an access to the terrace from that staircase through a window which was removed by Kanwal Chaudri who installed full fledged door to use it as a regular passage despite availability of two separate and independent staircases to the terrace, one alongside her portion of the property and another through the servant quarters claiming the loft to be appurtenant to the staircase, Ranjan Pant has states that it was under his ownership. He has alleged that servants / agents of Kanwal Chaudri would use the disputed staircase during night hours without any purpose and to harass him. It is also his case that on 30.06.2003 when a pooja was being conducted by Ranjan Pant, Kanwal Chaudri with help and assistance of her agents / employees stored a large number of goods at the entrance of the staircase which was objected to by him. However, as the storage of the articles was illegal, it was got removed by him and the confrontation between the parties escalated. It is alleged that Kanwal Chaudri crossed limits of decency and propriety by getting his property attacked / damaged by pelting of stones and iron rods. It is also stated that Kanwal Chaudri indulged in filthy abuses and threats to Ranjan Pant and his family and on five occasions between 21.06.2002 to 02.07.2022 called the police to overawe him. Being fed up of the alleged nuisance and harassment, Ranjan Pant decided to file the suit.
1,15,00,000 (Rupees. One Crore Fifteen Lacs Only) CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 13 of 45 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KANWAL CHAUDRI IN CS NO.
59491/2016
6. Kanwal Chaudri filed the written statement taking preliminary objections as under :
(a) That the suit had been filed by suppression of material facts with the sole intention of harassing her.
(b) That in the garb of permanent injunction, Ranjan Pant was seeking declaration of exclusive ownership, usage and exclusive possession of common staircase, two lofts, open space next to common servant toilet belonging to her and a common toilet for the servants in the staircase.
(c) That the suit is undervalued for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction.
7. On merits, she reiterated her ownership over the disputed area on similar logic as already described above in her plaint in CS no.59490/16 but she denied all allegations of harassing Ranjan Pant and his family. She asserted that the staircase was her normal passage to the second floor and terrace on the second floor and was common and had not been sold to Ranjan Pant. She explained that the staircase led to the second floor from portion B and could not end in a "window" which indeed is a door. She denied having abused, threatened and harassed Ranjan Pant or having got his portion of the property attacked. She denied that he had any cause of action against her.
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 14 of 45 REPLICATION IN CS NO. 59490/2016 AND CS NO. 59491/2016
8. Replication filed by both the parties are reiteration of the their respective plaints.
ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS CONDUCTED IN CS NO. 59490/2016
9. Admission and denial of documents has been conducted vide order dated 16.03.2004 and the following documents are admitted by Ranjan Pant and exhibited as under:
Sr. No. Document Exhibited as
1 Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated Ex. P-1
08.07.2002
2 Photograph of the property Ex. P-2
3 Photograph of the property Ex. P-3
4 Photograph of the property Ex. P-4
5 Photograph of the property Ex. P-5
6 Complaint by Kanwal Chaudri dated Ex. P-6
02.07.2003
7 Letter by Kanwal Chaudri dated 23.06.2003 to Ex. P-7
Chairman, NDMC
ISSUES FRAMED IN CS NO. 59490/16
10. Vide order dated 17.05.2004 following issues were framed :
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 15 of 45
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction, as prayed? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages, as prayed? (OPP)
3. Whether the site plan filed by the plaintiff is not correct and suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself? (OPD)
4. Relief.
ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS CONDUCTED IN CS NO. 59491/16
11. Admission and denial of documents was carried out on 06.04.2004 wherein Kanwal Chaudri admitted the following documents:
Sl no. Name of document Exhibited
as
1. Print out of email dated 16.06.2003 sent by Ranjan Ex. P-1 Pant to Kanwal Chaudri
2. Print out of email dated 17.06.2003 sent by Ranjan Ex. P-2 Pant to Kanwal Chaudri
3. Print out of email dated 20.06.2003 sent by Kanwal Ex. P-3 Chaudri to Ranjan Pant
4. Print out of mail sent by Ranjan Pant to Kanwal Ex. P-4 Chaudri
5. True copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.2002 Ex. P-5 ISSUES FRAMED IN CS NO. 59491/16
12. Vide order dated 17.05.2004 following issues were framed :
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 16 of 45
(i) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?OPD
(ii) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the grounds mentioned in the preliminary objections?OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed, in the suit? OPP
(iv) Relief (Vide the same order, it was observed that since suit bearing no.
1447/2003 {new CS no. 59490/16} and the suit bearing no. 1453/2003 {new CS no. 59491/16} were inter-connected, it was directed that evidence was to be recorded in suit bearing no. 1453/2003 {new CS no. 59491/16}only) PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
13. PW-1 Sh. Suraj Prakash Pandit tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/1 and deposed that his name appears on the Registered Sale Deed as one of the marginal witnesses.
14. PW-2 Ms. Kanwal Chaudri tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as PW-2/A in evidence along with following documents:
Sr. Document Exhibited as
No.
1 Copy of Memorandum of apportionment Ex. P-1/1
dated 26.09.2001 (objected to mode
of proof)
(The original
would be in the
custody of
Kanwal Chaudri
CS no. 59490/2016
Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant
CS no. 59491/2016
Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 17 of 45
or her sister. The
document has not
been controverted
at any stage and
relied upon by
Ranjan Pant.
Therefore, the
objection is
frivolous and is
overruled)
2 Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed Ex. P-1/2
dated 08.07.2002 (objected to mode
of proof)
(Objection is
without merit as
both parties have
relied on the same
Registered Sale
Deed which has
already been
exhibited as Ex.
P-1 and Ex. P-5.
Objection
therefore, stands
overruled)
3 Copy of letter dated 23.06.2003 written by Ex. P-1/3
Kanwal Chaudri to The Chairman, NDMC
4 Letter No. 317/DES/CEE-I dated Ex. P-1/4
07.07.2003 sent by Supdtg. Engg. (E)-III to (objected to mode Kanwal Chaudri of proof) (document not marked on file) 5 Criminal complaint dated 08.07.2003 filed Ex. P-1/5 by Kanwal Chaudri against Ranjan Pant (objected to mode of proof) (document not marked on file) 6 Copies of emails dated 20.06.2003, Ex. P-1/6 (colly.) CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 18 of 45 21.06.2003 26.06.2003, written by Kanwal (objected to mode Chaudri to Ranjan Pant of proof) (document not marked on file) 7 Map of the property Ex. PW-2/D-1
15. PW-3 Capt. Inder Pal Singh Sabbarwal tendered his evidence by way of affidavit PW-3/A and deposed that he is in the business of real estate as broker and was involved in the sale of property known as Apartment-B, First Floor, 10A, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
16. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined and vide order dated 29.09.2012, PE stood closed.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
17. DW-1 Sh. Ranjan Pant tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon photographs Ex. P-6 filed in CS no.59491/16 (old no.1453/2003).
18. DW2 Sh. Sher Singh Dagar tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A and deposed that on 08.07.2002 he had signed the sale deed and had taken active part in consultation leading to purchase of independent portion of First Floor, 10A, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 19 of 45
19. Both the witnesses were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.10.2012, DE stood closed before the Ld. Local Commissioner.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
20. Final arguments have been advanced by both the sides led by Ms. Zeba Khair, Advocate on behalf of Kanwal Chaudri and by Sh. Shiv Chopra, Advocate on behalf of Ranjan Pant. They have also filed their written submissions.
21. In brief, the argument on behalf of Kanwal Chaudri can be summarized as under :
(a) That no site plan or map was proved by Ranjan Pant. Ex.
PW2/D1 is the map which was annexed with the Memorandum of Apportionment (Ex. P-1/1) to which the defendant was not a party and cannot be relied upon by him to reverse engineer the measurements in the map to show that Apartment B admeasures 2250 sq. ft., only when suit property is inclusive therein as no such pleading was made and no evidence was led.
(b) That reliance upon Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Ors.4 is misconceived because Kanwal Chaudri is in lawful possession of the suit property and Ranjan Pant has maliciously tried to encroach upon the same raising unsubstantiated claims of ownership / possession and as such as there is no cloud over her title, 4 Appeal (Civil) 6191 of 2001 decided on 25.03.2008 by Supreme Court.
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 20 of 45 she cannot be compelled to seek declaration of her title over the suit property.
(c) That the sale deed clearly established that the portion which was sold to the defendant Apartment B with one servant quarter and one common toilet on the terrace of the first floor. It is stated that Portion B and Apartment B have been used interchangeably and should be harmoniously construed.
(d) That only the right to use the staircase, common toilet in the well of the staircase and terrace (with permission of Kanwal Chaudri to fix water tanks, antenna etc.) was only given to Ranjan Pant as per the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2). However, on account of poor drafting, advantage is being taken by Ranjan Pant. To demonstrate that the drafting is poor, it has been argued that even though, there is a reference to the mezzanine floor in the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2), the mezzanine floor falls in Portion A as per Ex. PW2/D1. Referring to the cross examination of PW1 dated 1.09.2012 and 6.09.2012 it has been sought to be demonstrated that there was no mezzanine floor in Portion B. Another example of poor drafting of Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) is stated to be inclusion of "basement" in it when infact, there was not basement.
(e) That Ranjan Pant was allowed one key for ground floor entrance as per the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) and it was categorically mentioned therein that the parties shall have common rights over the same. It has been emphasized that grant of "right" did not amount to sale. It has also been adumbrated that the staircase vested in Kanwal Chaudri as it was agreed between her and her sister that , if CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 21 of 45 any construction was done above the second floor, they both would have equal right on it and the staircase would then only be the access to that floor.
(f) That selling of staircase and lofts did not find mention in the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) despite the loft being a completely distinct architectural structure suggesting that it was not sold. It has again been asserted that the staircase is a part of common usage area and was never sold.
(g) That the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) has been proved to have been prepared by Ranjan Pant and the site plan also has been deliberately withheld as evidenced vide e-mails ex. Pw1/6 colly. Drawing the attention of the Court to the plaint in CS (OS)1453 of 2003 and written statement in CS(OS) 1447 of 2003, contradiction in the statement of Ranjan pant qua existence of the site plan has been heavily relied upon.
(h) That the Ld Local Commissioner's report has established as under :
(i) Lofts were in the possession of Kanwal Chaudri
(ii) The portions marked D, E and F in the rough site plan are in the possession of Ms. Chaudri.
(iii) The portion marked G in the rough site plan is a toilet in the possession of Ms. Chaudri. There are two water tanks on the open terrace portion. The water tank marked H is stated by the parties, is being used by Mr. Ranjan Pant and the water tank marked I is being used by Ms. Chaudri. The open terrace floor is connected to terrace of Apartment A and Annexee Block on either sides as shown in the rough site plan.CS no. 59490/2016
Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 22 of 45
22. Reliance has been placed upon following judgments by Kanwal Chaudri :
1. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Ors. (Supra)
2. Vishram Vs. Sudesh Govekar5
3. Jharkhand State Housing Board vs. Didar Singh 6 (All three to urge that interference with lawful and peaceful possession would be sufficient to seek simpliciter injunction)
4. Misrilal Ramratan & Ors. Mansukhlal & Ors Vs. A.S. Shaik Fathimal (dead) by LRS & Ors.7 5. Vinod Goel Vs. Mahesh Yadav 8 (Both to urge Ld. Local Commissioner's report if not objected to should be deemed final.)
6. Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings (P) Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator 9 (Litigant should not be allowed to take contradictory stand)
23. It has been argued on behalf of Ranjan Pant that he is the true owner of the suit property and in possession of the same therefore, a simpliciter suit for injunction would lie. It is not sufficient to raise cloud over the title which stands established from the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) by mere denial. According to the Ld. Counsel for Ranjan Pant, the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) mentions that area of 2250 sq. ft. was sold to Ranjan Pant and as per Site Plan / Map (Ex. PW2/D1), the suit property is 5 (2017) 11 SCC 345 6 (2019) 17 Scc 692 7 1995 Supp (4) SCC 660 8 (2018) SCC OnLine Del 9497 9 (2018) 10 SCC 707 CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 23 of 45 inclusive to reach the measurement of 2250 sq. ft. Thereafter, referring to the site plan (Ex. PW2/D1), it has been argued that Portion A has a much wider staircase which leads to the terrace from side of Portion A. Ld counsel for the Ranjan Pant referred to clause 2 and 4 of Memorandum of Apportionment (Ex. P-1/1) to say that phrase "right to use and enjoy" absolutely and forever has been synonymously used with phrase "sole and exclusive owner". Thus, as Kanwal Chaudri was given the "right to use and enjoy" absolutely and forever the entire first floor of the main building, the second floor of the servant's block including the terrace thereon, one garage of the ground floor of the servant's block, the "staircases" and a part of porch area, therefore, the use of phrase "right to use and enjoy" used in the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) should be given the same meaning which infact was to confer absolute ownership and not limited to usage as propounded by Kanwal Chaudri. Relying upon Section 11 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Umashankar Aggarwal Vs. Daualt Ram Sahu10, it has been urged that the seller could not impose conditions on the buyer as to how to use the property that has been transferred. It has also been argued that the Court should be sensitive to the use of the word "staircase" when the sold property is described in the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) as against "staircases" in the Clause 411 of Memorandum of Apportionment (Ex. P-1/1). It is also stated that as per internal page 10 of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2), one servant quarter and a 10 2010 SCC OnLine Chh 288 11 Ms. Kanwal Chaudri was given the right to use and enjoy absolutely and forever the entire first floor, the second floor and the mezzanine floor of the main building, second floor of servant's block including the terrace thereon, one garage on the ground floor of he servant's block, the staircases and a part of the porch area shown in yellow colour in the site plan attached to this Memorandum.
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 24 of 45 toilet on the terrace were also sold to Ranjan Pant. By referring to the affidavit of evidence of Sh. Ranjan Pant (Ex. DW1/A) it has been submitted that he has been able to prove that there was no door in the staircase in dispute which led upto the terrace. It is stated that the testimony of Sh. Ranjan Pant on this aspect remained uncontroverted. Also, it has been argued that the staircase is appurtenant to the Apartment A and has urged the Court to interpret the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) as a whole and give effect to the earlier clause when the clauses are irreconcilable. Reliance has been placed upon Ramkishorelal and Anr Vs. Kamal Narayan 12, Provash Chandra Dalui Vs. Bishwanath Banerjee13, Sharda Nath Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors.14 and Sumathy Amma & Anr. Vs. Sankara Pillai Ananthakrishnan Nair15. It has also been argued that the report of the Ld. Local Commissioner is not reliable due to contradiction in the typed and the handwritten report and as it was prepared in the absence of Sh. Ranjan Pant.
REASONING AND APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD
24. This Court has considered the submissions and material on record.
25. In CS no. 59491/16, an issue has been framed qua under valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. At the outset, the same has not been argued on behalf of the parties. The 12 AIR 1963 SC 890 13 1989 Supp (1) SCC 487 14 (2008) 102 DRJ 249 (DB) 15 AIR Kerala 84 CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 25 of 45 onus to prove the same was upon Kanwal Chaudri. Perusal of paragraph no. 4 of the preliminary objection of her written statement is silent as to how the valuation is incorrect. Whereas, Ranjan Pant in paragraph no. 16 of the plaint has valued it at Rs.22,00,000/- and paid a court fees of Rs.23,480/-. Therefore, the onus not having been discharged by Kanwal Chaudri, the issue is decided against her.
26. Issue no. (1) and (2) in CS no. 59490/16 and issues no. (ii) and
(iii) in CS no. 59491/16 being inter-related are being taken up for discussion together. Alongwith them, an issue qua the maintainability of the suit in view of the ratio of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Ors. (supra) also being inter-twined, shall be discussed alongside. The onus was on both the respective parties to establish the same.
27. In the considered view of this Court, much of the controversy can be ironed out depending on the interpretation of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2). However, before proceeding further, it would only be convenient to recollect the common rules for interpretation of a contract. To determine the correct meaning of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2), this Court would be required to interpret it as it is determine the intent of the parties when they entered into it and in the search for that intent, look for manifestations of the intentions as to what the parties were thinking when they entered into the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2). Some common manifestations of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) would include the express provisos CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 26 of 45 therein, course of performance (sequence of events leading upto the execution of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2), previous course of dealing before executing the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2), existence of any separately negotiated terms and trade practices, if any. This Court is also conscious that the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) is to be read as a whole and not in series of isolated parts. If still, the ambiguities are not resolved, the Court can resort to Doctrine of contra proferentem which provides that in ambiguous contract provision shall be construed against the drafter / the party that had the opportunity to make the provision clear.
28. In Bangalore Electricity Supply company Limited (BESCOM) Vs. E.S. Solar Power Private Limited and Ors.16 it was held as under:
"15. Before embarking on the exercise of interpretation of the agreement it is necessary to take stock of the well- settled canons of construction of contracts. Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme Limited vs. West Bromwich Building Society17 summarized the broad principles of interpretation of contract as follows:
(1) Interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract.
(2) The background was famously referred to by Lord Wilberforce as the "matrix of fact," but this phrase is, if anything, an understated description of what the background may include.
Subject to the requirement that it should have been reasonably available to the parties and to the exception to be mentioned next, it includes absolutely anything which would have affected the way in which the language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man.
16 AIR 2021 Supreme Court 3418 17 1998 (1) AIR 98 CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 27 of 45 (3) The law excludes from the admissible background the previous negotiations of the parties and their declarations of subjective intent. They are admissible only in an action for rectification. The law makes this distinction for reasons of practical policy and, in this respect only, legal interpretation differs from the way we would interpret utterances in ordinary life. The boundaries of this exception are in some respects unclear. But this is not the occasion on which to explore them.
(4) The meaning which a document (or any other utterance) would convey to a reasonable man is not the same thing as the meaning of its words. The meaning of words is a matter of dictionaries and grammars; the meaning of the document is what the parties using those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood to mean. The background may not merely enable the reasonable man to choose between the possible meanings of words which are ambiguous but even (as occasionally happens in ordinary life) to conclude that the parties must, for whatever reason, have used the wrong words or syntax. (See : Mannai Investments Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd18) (5) The "rule" that words should be given their "natural and ordinary meaning" reflects the common sense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly in formal documents. On the other hand, if one would nevertheless conclude from the background that something must have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute to the parties an intention which they plainly could not have had. Lord Diplock made this point more vigorously when he said in The Antaios Compania Neviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB19:
"... if detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business commonsense, it must be made to yield to business commonsense."
16. The duty of the Court is not to delve deep into the intricies of human mind to explore the undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of words used i.e. to say expressed intentions (Smt. Kamala Devi vs. Seth Takhatmal & Anr 20). In seeking to construe a clause in a Contract, there is no scope for adopting either a liberal or a narrow approach, whatever that may mean. The exercise which has to be undertaken is to determine what the words used mean. It can happen that in doing so one is driven to the conclusion that clause is ambiguous, and that it has two possible meanings. In those circumstances, the Court has to prefer 18 (1997) 2 WLR 945 19 (1985) 1 AC 191, 201 20 1964 (2) SCR 152 CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 28 of 45 one above the other in accordance with the settled principles. If one meaning is more in accord with what the Court considers to the underlined purpose and intent of the contract, or part of it, than the other, then the court will choose former or rather than the later. Ashville Investment v. Elmer Contractors.21 The intention of the parties must be understood from the language they have used, considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances and object of the contract. Bank of India and Anr. v. K. MohanDas and Ors.22 Every contract is to be considered with reference to its object and the whole of its terms and accordingly the whole context must be considered in endeavoring to collect the intention of the parties, even though the immediate object of inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Ors.23"
29. Again in Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Abhijit Paul 24 on interpretation of contract the Apex Court held as under :
"18. There are certain basic principles evolved by courts of law for deciphering the true and correct meaning of expressions in a contract. In Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s Green Rubber Industries and Ors.(supra), this Court observed that, "Every contract is to be considered with reference to its object and the whole of its terms and accordingly the whole context must be considered in endeavouring to collect the intention of the parties, even though the immediate object of enquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause."
19. In Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry 25, this Court held that contractual terms cannot be interpreted in isolation, following strict etymological rules or be guided by popular connotation of terms, at variance with the contractual context. It observed :
"8. It is true that the words "any claim for the payment of a sum of money" occurring in the opening part of Clause 18 are words of great amplitude, wide enough to cover even a claim for damages, but it is a well settled rule of interpretation applicable alike to instruments as to statutes that the meaning of ordinary words is to be found not so much in strict etymological propriety of language nor even in popular use as in the subject or occasion on which they are used and the object which is intended to be attained. The context and collocation of a particular expression may show that it was not intended to be used in the sense which it ordinarily bears. Language 21 1988 (2)All ER 577 22 2009 5 SCC 313 23 1990 (1) SCC 731 24 Civil Appeal nos. 8572-8573/2022 Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16009-16010 of 2019 25 (1974) 2 SCC 231 CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 29 of 45 is at best an imperfect medium of expression and a variety of meanings may often lie in a word or expression. The exact colour and shape of the meaning of any word or expression should not be ascertained by reading it in isolation, but it should be read structurally and in its context, for its meaning may vary with its contractual setting. We must, therefore, read the words 'any claim for the payment of a sum of money' occurring in the opening part of Clause 18 not in isolation but in the context of the whole clause, for the intention of the parties is to be gathered not from one part of the clause or the other but from the clause taken as a whole. It is in the light of this principle of interpretation that we must determine whether the words 'any claim for the payment of a sum of money' refer only to a claim for a sum due and payable which is admitted or in case of dispute, established in a Court of law or by arbitration or they also include a claim for damages which is disputed by the contractor."
(emphasis supplied)
20. In Provash Chandra Dalui and Anr. v. Biswanath Banerjee and Anr.26, noting that the intention of the parties must be discerned from the context of the contract, this Court observed:
"10. 'Ex praecedentibus et consequentibus optima fit interpretatio.' The best interpretation is made from the context. Every contract is to be construed with reference to its object and the whole of its terms. The whole context must be considered to ascertain the intention of the parties. It is an accepted principle of construction that the sense and meaning of the parties in any particular part of instrument may be collected 'ex antecedentibus et consequentibus;' every part of it may be brought into action in order to collect from the whole one uniform and consistent sense, if that is possible. ...
In construing a contract the court must look at the words used in the contract unless they are such that one may suspect that they do not convey the intention correctly. If the words are clear, there is very little the court can do about it. In the construction of a written instrument it is legitimate in order to ascertain the true meaning of the words used and if that be doubtful it is legitimate to have regard to the circumstances surrounding their creation and the subject matter to which it was designed and intended they should apply."
(emphasis supplied)
21. In BESCOM v. E.S. Solar Power Pvt Ltd and Ors (supra), this Court held that in case of two possible interpretations of a contractual term, the court must accord primacy to the one that is consistent with the underlying purpose of the contract. It noted:
"17. ... In seeking to construe a clause in a contract, there is no scope for adopting either a liberal or a narrow approach, whatever that may mean. The exercise which has to be undertaken is to determine 26 1989 Supp (1) Scc 487 CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 30 of 45 what the words used mean. It can happen that in doing so one is driven to the conclusion that clause is ambiguous, and that it has two possible meanings. In those circumstances, the court has to prefer one above the other in accordance with the settled principles. If one meaning is more in accord with what the court considers to be the underlined purpose and intent of the contract, or part of it, than the other, then the court will choose the former or rather than the latter..."
(emphasis supplied)
30. Also, in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Ors. (supra) held that "Every contract is to be considered with reference to its object and the whole of its terms and accordingly the whole context must be considered in endeavouring to collect the intention of the parties, even though the immediate object of enquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause. " Here, it was also observed that "It is settled law that a person who signs a document which contains contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them, even though he is ignorant of the precise legal effect."
31. With the above enunciations in perspective, the material on record is now being evaluated on the above mentioned principles:
(A) Course of performance leading up to the execution of the registered sale deed :
32. The material witnesses examined on the course of performance would be Ms. Kanwal Chaudri (PW2), Capt. Inderpal Singh Sabharwal (PW3), Ranjan Pant (DW1) and Sh. Sher Singh Dagar (DW2). It has been the case of Ranjan Pant that during negotiations, it was CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 31 of 45 specifically conveyed to Kanwal Chaudri that an independent unit was required by him. His testimony to that effect in Ex. DW1/A remained uncontroverted. Ranjan Pant denied that all knowledge about the happenings relating to the execution of the sale deed was hearsay. He deposed that his brother and mother were in constant touch with him through every step of the process. Sh. Sher Singh Dagar (DW2) also in response to the question that the property sold to Ranjan Pant was exclusive of the staircase, specifically responded as under :
"Q. I put it to you that the property sold to the defendant was Apartment 'B' only on the First Floor and one servant quarter on Second Floor within the stair case without roof or terrace in portion 'B' of 10A, K.G. Marg, New Delhi.
A. We were told by the plaintiff that approximately 2250 Sq. Ft. area in the Apartment 'B' comprising of three bed rooms, drawing / dinning, pantries and one mezzanine for storage purpose, stair case having two lofts plus servant quarter, toilet and bath for the servant which was dead end and we took this as independent unit having no hindrance whatsoever."
Thus, his testimony on requirement of the independent unit was not challenged by Kanwal Chaudri. Capt. Inderpal Singh (PW3) deposed that Kanwal Chaudri had made it clear that the ownership of the staircase, terrace and all roof / terrace rights would remain vested in her and was communicated to Ranjan Pant through his mother. However, during cross examination on 29.09.2012, he admitted never to have met Smt. Ila Pant, mother of Ranjan Pant or Sh. Ranjan Pant before the execution of the sale deed. He also admitted that his affirmations of having communicated the intentions of Kanwal Chaudri to Ranjan Pant was not by him. He volunteered that it was only through Sh. Sher Singh Dagar. Thus, the witness on aforesaid aspect has wavered and there isn't comparatively sufficient evidence to dislodge the evidence led by CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 32 of 45 Ranjan Pant regarding having expressed the requirement of an independent unit by him.
(B) Exclusivity of Apartment B
33. Whereas, Kanwal Charudri asserts that vide Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2), she only sold Apartment B, measuring approximately 2250 sq. ft, to Ranjan Pant without terrace / roof rights with one servant quarter situated on the staircase leading to the terrace of the first floor and one common servant toilet as shown in the site plan attached to the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) by relying upon clauses 7, 16 and 24 of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) and claims to have retained the ownership of the staircases, passages, common entrance, terrace and roof 27. Ranjan Pant has affirmed that he had purchased Portion B of Property no. 10A, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi admeasuring 2250 sq. ft. consisting of a drawing room cum dining room, 3 bedrooms, 3 toilet cum bathrooms, kitchen and pantry room, one servant quarter on the terrace of the first floor with one toilet and bath, the staircase and mezzanine floor, all rights, interests, privileges and appurtenances, easements, fitting and fixtures like lofts, proportionate and undivided ownership rights in the land underneath, all passages, accesses, two car parking in specified area in front of the entrance door portion at the ground floor alongwith right of visitors to part vehicles in the driveway and the right to all common areas and services and facilities, including right to use the roof, provided in the building28. 27 Refer to paragraph no. 8 of affidavit of the Kanwal Chaudri Ex. PW2/A 28 Paragraph no.4 of affidatvit of Ranjan Pant whch is Ex DW1/A CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 33 of 45
34. Relevant here is thus description of the property which was sold and described in Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) 29 as under :
AND WHEREAS in the manner aforesaid, Ms. Kanwal Chaudri (The Vendor herein) is the absolute and exclusive owner and in possession of the first floor portion "B" (adjacent to the annexe block) without terrace / roof right, measuring 2250 sq. ft. consisting of Three Rooms, Drawing-cum-Dining, Kitchen, Three Toilet-cum- bathroom etc.
-with one servant quarter on the terrace of first floor and one toilet as more clearly shown (duly mark red) in the plan attached hereto, of the property bearing No. 10-A, Plot No. 37, Block No. 148, situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi with all rights, interests, privileges, appurtenances whatsoever appurtenant and fitting and fixtures fittings and necessary amenities like
-services of Electricity & common water connection, along with proportionate undivided and indivisible ownership rights / share in the said underneath the said property, together with the rights to use / avail common entrance, stair-case, passages, services and facilities provided in the building and basements attached thereto, thereinafter collectively referred to as the said portion of the said property to the VENDEE for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lacs Only)"
35. Again recital 6 of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2)30 stipulates as under :
"AND WHEREAS in the manner aforesaid, Ms. Kanwal Chaudri (the Vendor) is the absolute and exclusive owner and in possession of the first floor portion 'B' (adjacent to annexe block) without Terrace/roof rights, with one servant quarter on the terrace of first floor and one toilet measuring approx 2250 sq. ft. as more clearly shown (duly mark red) in the plan attached hereto, of the said property bearing No. 10-A, Plot No.37, Block No. 148, Situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi with all rights, interests, privileges,
-appurtenances whatsoever appurtenant and fitting and fixtures, fittings and necessary amenities like services of Electricity & common water connection, alongwith proportionate undivided and indivisible ownership rights/share in the said underneath the said property, together with the rights to use/avail common entrance, staircase, passages, services and facilities provided i the building and easements attached thereto, thereinafter collectively referred to as the said portion of the said property) to the Vendee for a total 29 Page no. 9, 10 and 11 30 Page no. 26 and 27 CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 34 of 45 sale consideration of Rs. 1,15,00,000 (Rupees. One Crore Fifteen Lacs Only)"
36. Further, clause 3 provides as under :
"3. The VENDEE have the unencumbered right to use only the apartment / portion "B" of the floor, one servant quarter and one common toilet on the terrace of the first floor.""
37. Also, clause 6 mentions the following :
"6. The Vendee will have the unencumbered right to use only the apartment / portion 'B' of the first floor, one servant quarter and one toilet on the terrace of the first floor (mezzanine floor without any hindrance / obstruction from anyone in respect of the entire property so bought from Vendor and other owners) all its passages, staircases and accesses. The Vendee shall however, have rights of access to the terrace in common for inspection etc."
emphasis supplied
38. Clause 7 is as under :
"7. Both owner (Vendor) and purchaser (Vendee) will have one key each, of the Ground floor entrance door and shall have common rights of the same. However, neither of them shall do anything which may result in obstruction of any kind for joint usage of the common portion aforementioned."
39. Recital 2 an internal page of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) also stipulates :
24. That the Vendor has kept the terrace rights of the first floor (top floor). However, Vendee have right to use the terrace to install overhead water tank over the existing servant quarter and TV Antena on as above and the Vendee can clean his water tank and check TV Antenna whenever to be required on the reasonable time of day. The owner of the terrace will not raise any objection to the same."
40. Ld. Counsel for Kanwal Chaudri has blamed poor drafting of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) as the root of the CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 35 of 45 controversy. It is also the case of Kanwal Chaudri that the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) as accompanied with a site plan which has been withheld by Ranjan Pant. Ranjan Pant in his plaint in CS no. 59491/16 has stated that the site plan attached with the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) was being annexed alongwith the plaint as document no.2. Document no. 2 is a photocopy of a site plan which was never tendered in evidence. However, appears to be a copy of admitted site plan (Ex. PW2/D1) which was an annexure to the Memorandum of Apportionment (Ex. P- 1/1).
41. The onus was upon Kanwal Chaudri to prove that Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) had a site plan which was withheld by Ranjan Pant and distinct from the map attached to the Memorandum of Apportionment (Ex. P-1/1).
42. A material witness on behalf of Kanwal Chaudri to depose on the site plan annexed to the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) is Sh. Suraj Prakash Pandit (PW1), witness to it. During cross examination 10.12.2004, he was specifically questioned on the site plan and he answered as under :
"... The site plan referred to in the covenant 5 at page 24 of the sale deed is with Mss. Ila Pant as the same was handed over to her by Mrs. Kanwal Chaudhary after signature of both the parties for further registration.
Q. The site plan referred to in covenant 5 at the page 24 of the Sale Deed refers to the places where the parties / tenants park their vehicles.
A. Site plan was signed in my presence. But I cannot comment about the contents thereof.CS no. 59490/2016
Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 36 of 45 It is incorrect to suggest that the site plan referred to hereinabove is not with Mrs. Ila Pant but Mrs. Kanwal Chaudhary. Q. There is reference to another site plan on internal page 26 of the sale deed and no such site plan was executed between the parties.
A. I have was only one site plan which was executed by Mrs.Kanwal Chaudhary and Mrs. Ila Pant detailing the portion sold to Mr. Ranjant Pant"
Hence, it is established that there was only one site plan finding reference in the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) detailing the portion sold to Ranjan Pant.
43. During cross examination, specific query was put to Kanwal Chaudri with regards to certified copy of the sale deed which is as under :
"Q. Did you apply for a certified copy of the sale deed at any point of time from the office of the Sub Registrar? A. I think I did. Vol. Mr. Pant and Mrs. Ila Pant had told me that they would get me a copy but they did not."
44. Again during cross examination on 06.09.2012, Kanwal Chaudri responded as under:
"Q. Have you checked your record to see if you have got certified copy of the Sale deed dated 8.7.2002 since on the last date your had stated that your had applied for it?
A, I have not yet got certified copy of the Sale Deed. Q. Do you have any proof of applying for a certified copy of the Sale Deed?
A. No. We are still looking for it."
45. On 07.09.2012 she stated as under :
"Q. Yesterday you had mentioned that you are trying to locate the proof of applying for a certified copy of the Sale deed dated 8.7.2002. Have you been able to check your records? A. Not so far.
Q. I put it to you that no Site Plan was annexed to the Sale Deed dated 8.7.2002 CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 37 of 45 A. It is incorrect.
Q. Have you filed any complaint with the office of the Sub Registrar about the absence of Site Plan with the Sale Deed dated 8.7.2002.
A. I cannot recall but I have mentioned it in the Court. Vol. The Site Plan was duly signed by Mrs. Ila Pant and myself delineating the portion sold in red colour.
Q. I put it to you that no such Site Plan was ever signed by you and Mrs. Ila Pant.
A. It is incorrect. It is very clearly stated in the Sale Deed in a separate para therein."
46. However, no steps were taken to even summon a witness from the Office of the Sub Registrar to establish whether a site plan distinct from the site plan (Ex. PW2/D1) which formed part of Memorandum of Apportionment (Ex. P-1/1) was the basis of sale. Capt. Inderpal Singh (PW3) during his cross examination on 29.09.2012 also deposed that Kanwal Chaudri had never asked him for the certified copy of the sale deed or told him that any document attached with the sale deed was missing. This is a relevant conduct on the part of Kanwal Chaudri considering that Capt. Inderpal Singh was her broker. Sh. Sher Singh Dagar (DW2) was not controverted on his assertion that the site plan referred to at the time of sale was the site plan which was part of Memorandum of Apportionment (Ex. P-1/1). Kanwal Chaudri therefore, failed to discharge the onus of existence of a different site plan than Ex. PW2/D1 depicting the portion of Apartment B purportedly sold to Ranjan Pant. Hence, that remains a reference point for deciding the controversy which has spanned over two decades.
47. Much hue and cry has been raised by Kanwal Chaudri of poor drafting of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2).
CS no. 59490/2016Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 38 of 45 However, as held in Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Ors. (supra) that a person who signs the document containing the contractual terms is bound by it even though he has not read it or is ignorant of the precise legal effect. It is bearing on the mind of this Court that testimony of Capt. Inderpal Singh demonstrates that the draft was also corrected by Kanwal Chaudri. He has specifically deposed that when the draft of the sale deed was handed over to him by Sh. Sher Singh Dagar (DW2), it was forwarded to Kanwal Chaudri who made corrections on it and handed over the same to the witness for giving it to Sh. Sher Singh Dagar (DW2) for finalizing the same. Perusal of Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) also shows that Kanwal Caudri had also made corrections in clause 24 vide which Vendor retained certain rights in the property which only suggests that the document was not executed casually.
48. When Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) is evaluated as a whole, clause 24 assumes importance as it specifically provides that the vendor (Kanwal Chaudri) had retained rights in the property, as described therein. Therefore, when the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) was executed, the parties were consciously acting on it and it is a course of dealing between the parties which persuades this Court to believe that Kanwal Chaudri did not retain exclusive ownership of the staircase leading to Apartment B. CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 39 of 45
49. As per Memorandum of Apportionment (Ex. P-1/1), staircases fell in the share of Kanwal Chaudri31. Hence, staircases were deemed to be part of Apartments A and B on the first floor which came to the share of Kanwal Chaudri. From her cross examination dated 01.09.2012, it can further be gathered that Apartment A had a separate wider staircase and led to the terrace above it. She admitted that the staircase in dispute was an alternate way to reach the terrace above Apartment B. Therefore, the only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that the staircase in dispute is appurtenant to Apartment B as there is no alternate to reach the apartment. The exclusivity of the staircase being part of Apartment B is also discernible from cross examination of Kanwal Chaudri conducted on 07.12.2012 when she admitted from site plan (Ex PW2/D1) that the intention behind partitioning the corridors at points E and F was to create two independent separate flats on the first floor of the property. Also, when the witness was examined qua existence of any opening in portion G, H, I, J of site plan Ex. PW2/D1 into the terrace, she admitted that it did not show any opening but volunteered that windows were also not shown. The objection that the cross examination was beyond pleading stands overruled in view of the specific pleading that the staircase merely had a window and was not a regular passage into the terrace32. The testimony of Ranjan Pant that the staircase leading to the terrace terminated in a glass window with iron bars from which the terrace was visible but which was not intended for access thereto33, also remained uncontroverted. She claimed that the map was old but did not lead any evidence to show since when had she 31 Refer to para no. 4 of the Memorandum of Apportionment. 32 Paragraph no. 6 of CS no. Ranjan pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri 33 Paragraph no. 5 of Affidavit of Ranjan pant Ex. DW1/A CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 40 of 45 installed the said door giving access to the terrace. This is another circumstance which suggests the exclusivity of the staircase as a part of Apartment B.
50. An argument has been offered on behalf of Kanwal Chaudri that as per the Registered Sale Deed34, keys of the common entrance was to be kept by the vendor and the vendee suggests that the staircase was meant to be common. However, it merely states that the parties had "common rights of the same" implying only to the entrance whereas consciously, common areas have been delineated for example clause 6 (where it states "terrace in common"). Kanwal Chaudri did not lead any evidence to show that the electricity expenses of the alleged common staircase was being borne by her since execution of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2).
51. As a manifestation of the intention of the parties, Ld. Counsel for Ranjan Pant argued that 2250 sq. ft. inclusive of the disputed area was sold to Ranjan Pant. However, Ld. Counsel for Kanwal Chaudri has argued that this reverse engineering is beyond pleadings and by drawing the attention of the Court to the testimony of Kanwal Chaudri argued that the mezzanine floor is not a part of 'Apartment B' but is a part of 'Apartment A' and therefore, the measurement of 2250 sq. ft was loosely mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2).
34 Clause 7 of Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 41 of 45
52. However, from the site plan Ex. PW2/D1, it is not discernible whether mezzanine floor is part of 'Apartment A' or 'Apartment B' and except for the contrary statement of the parties, there is no credible material to ascertain which portion of the property it belongs to.
(C) Applicability of ratio of P. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Ors. (Supra)
53. Ld. Counsel for the parties relied upon the judgment but at the same time urged this Court to put to rest the controversy considering that parties have been litigating for more than two decades.
54. As regards the applicability of the ratio of P. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Ors. (Supra), it would be relevant to summarize the position in law for maintaining a simpliciter suit for injunction.
55. In paragraph no. 21 of the judgment, it has been held as under :
"21. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under :
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 42 of 45 de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar Vs. Alagammal35]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction.
Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case."
56. As per the plaint of CS no. 59490/16, Kanwal Chaudri specifically alleged that Ranjan Pant had "unauthorizedly and illegally occupied, encroached, transgressed into areas which exclusively belong and are owned" by her. She also has sought mandatory injunction seeking vacation of areas allegedly occupied by Ranjan Pant by way of prayer clauses (d), (e), (f) and (g). In effect, what is being sought is possession of the alleged occupied portions. Hence, Kanwal Chaudri 35 (2005) 6 SCC 202 CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 43 of 45 stood dispossessed of those areas. She has relied upon Ld. Local Commissioner's report that two lofts in the staircase are in her possession. However, as per para no. 30 of her plaint, it is categorically stated that a loft has been illegally and forcibly taken over by Ranjan Pant. Therefore, in the reasoned view of this Court, as a cloud has been raised over Kanwal Chaudri's title and she is not in possession, a simpliciter suit for injunction would not lie.
57. On the contrary, in view of the detailed discussion above and considering that Ranjan Pant is stated to be in possession of the disputed area, it would not be appropriate to insist on a declaratory suit with consequential relief.
58. Accordingly, issue no. (1) and (2) in CS no. 59490/16 are decided against Kanwal Chaudri and issue no. (iii) in CS no. 59491/16 is decided in favour of Ranjan Pant.
59. As regards, issue no. (ii) in CS no. 59491/16, the other ground of preliminary objections was concealment of material facts. However, yet again, it has not been argued. It has also not been proved as to what material facts were withheld by Ranjan Pant. Therefore, the issue is decided against Kanwal Chaudri on whom the onus lay.
60. As regards, issue no. (3) in CS no. 59490/16, the onus was upon Ranjan Pant to prove the same. However, the site plan filed alongwith the plaint was not tendered in evidence and Kanwal Chaudri relied CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 44 of 45 upon map of the property (Ex. PW2/D-1) only. Therefore, the issue is decided in favour of Ranjan Pant.
RELIEF
61. In view of the discussions above, as Kanwal Chaudri has failed to establish her cause of action, her suit bearing CS no. 59490/2016 titled Kanwal Chaudri Vs. Rajan Pant stands dismissed.
62. Suit bearing CS no. 59491/2016 titled Ranjan Pant Vs. Kanwal Chaudri is decreed and Kanwal Chaudri, her agents, employees, servants, assigns are injuncted from interfering with peaceful enjoyment of Portion B, First Floor, No. 10A, K.G. Marg, in violation of the terms and conditions of Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2).
63. At the same time, it is clarified that the relief afforded to Ranjan Pant does not restrain the Municipal bodies from taking any action against Ranjan Pant for usage of his portion of the property in violation of any law, rules, bye-laws etc.
64. Decree sheets be prepared, accordingly.
VIJETA Digitally by VIJETA signed
65. File be consigned to records. SINGH RAWAT SINGH Date:
RAWAT 2024.08.12 15:45:36 +0530 Pronounced in open Court (Vijeta Singh Rawat) on 05.08.2024 District Judge-01, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CS no. 59490/2016 Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant CS no. 59491/2016 Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 45 of 45