Delhi District Court
Tarbia Education Foundation vs Krishan Bidhuri on 30 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PERVEEN,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE04, SOUTHEAST, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Ms. Neelofer Abida Perveen, ADJ04
Suit No.230/16
CIS No.8497/16
In the matter of:
Tarbia Education Foundation,
Regd. Office at:
4th Floor, AlMurtaza Apartments,
274B, Jamia Nagar, Okhla,
New Delhi110025. ..........Plaintiff.
Vs
Krishan Bidhuri,
S/o Khazan Singh,
R/o A116, Bhangad Mohalla,
Village Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi110076. .........Defendant.
Date of institution : 22.12.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 30.03.2017
Date of pronouncement of the order : 30.03.2017
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
Vide this order, I shall decide the present suit instituted by
the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the
defendant.
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 1 of 19
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking decree
of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant thereby restraining the defendant/his agents /assignees from
interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over property
described as entire Agriculture Land admeasuring 5 bigha 10 biswa in
Khasra no.792, Part of Khata Khatauni no.227/237 situated at Village
Madanpur Khadar Tehsil Sarita Vihar, New Delhi as also restraining
the defendants from creating third party interests in the said property.
The plaintiff seeks the decree of permanent injunction on a set of facts
that the plaintiff is a Charitable Company registered under Section 25
of the Companies Act, 1956 and has been formed to establish
Educational Institutions to impart education to educationally backward
communities in particular and others in general. The present suit is
being signed, filed, verified, and instituted by Sh. Mohd. Razi, the
Administrative Officer of the plaintiff who has been authorized by
virtue of Board Resolution dated 15.12.2014 issued in his favour. It is
the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of
the entire Agricultural Land admeasuring 5 bigha 10 biswa in Khasra
no.792, Part of Khata Khatauni no.227/237 situated at Village
Madanpur Khadar Tehsil Sarita Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as a suit property) having purchased the same vide registered sale
deed dated 29.06.2013, executed by Sh. Vinod Kumar as a duly
constituted attorney of the owners of the property. Two GPA both
dated 07.01.2004 were executed in favour of Sh. Vinod Kumar to deal
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 2 of 19
with the suit property by the owners. The plaintiff after the purchase of
the said property has also carried out the fencing of the said property
and the same is properly identifiable and demarcated. That the said
property has been purchased by the plaintiff in furtherance of the noble
cause for which the plaintiff company was established i.e. for
establishment of a school for the downtrodden children of the area.
That the plaintiff since inception of the purchase of the suit property is
in an uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the same and without
any interference from any corner and has been enjoying its physical
possession. The plaintiff company has also applied for mutation of the
said property its name with the appropriate authorities. That on
15.11.2014 around 12 p.m the defendant visited the suit property and
started to quarrel with the security guard of the plaintiff. The defendant
has also tried to dismantle the board of the plaintiff as well as the
guard room raised at the suit property. The defendant also extended
life threats to the security guard and asked him to run away from the
suit property immediately. The security guard immediately informed
the representatives of the plaintiff who in turn called the PCR and with
the intervention of the local police, the possession of the plaintiff was
saved. However, the defendant left the place with further threats that
he will see how the plaintiff constructs a school on the said property.
The plaintiff also filed a written complaint dated 15.11.2014 with the
police station Jaitpur, Delhi. That again on 21.11.2014 around 07:30 in
the morning the defendant reached the suit property, this time with 57
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 3 of 19
persons and again tried to forcefully enter in the suit property. The
defendant again threatened the security guard of the plaintiff that they
will come again and will not allow the school to be constructed on the
said land. The plaintiff again reported the matter to the local police and
filed a written complaint vide diary no.29B, dated 21.11.2014 at 10:30
a.m. That on 22.11.2014, the plaintiff wrote another complaint to the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East District, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi with copy to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Eastern
Range, Delhi Police, New Delhi. The plaintiff has also learnt from
different people on behalf of the defendant that they have floated the
suit property in the market for sale on the basis of some forged and
fabricated documents. That the defendant in furtherance of his modus
operandi and for the purpose of cheating, playing fraud and to usurp
the suit property has created some forged and fabricated documents of
the suit property, which is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The
defendant very well knowingly that the alleged documents (if any) are
forged and fabricated is using the same as genuine. The defendant and
his accomplices are regularly threatening the plaintiff of dire
consequences.
2. The summons in the suit were duly issued to the
defendant, the defendant put in appearance through counsel on
20.01.2016 and file written statement. The suit came to be transferred
to District Court at Saket upon enhancement of the pecuniary limits of
the district courts. The parties appeared on 24.02.2016 and submitted
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 4 of 19
that parties are negotiating an out of court settlement. The settlement
however could not materialise and the defendant thereafter chose to
abstain from the proceedings and as none appeared for the defendant
on 21.07.2016, 12.04.2016, 11.08.2016 and 15.09.2016, the defendant
was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.10.2016.
3. The plaintiff examined Sh. Mohd. Razi as PW1 in ex
parte evidence and PW1 besides the affidavit in evidence has tendered
into the following documents:
Sl. No. Documents Exhibited
1. Copy of certification of PW1/1
incorporation of plaintiff
company(OSR)
2. Board Resolution dated PW1/2
15.12.2014 (Original)
3. Certified true copy of sale PW1/3
deed (OSR)
4. Copies of two GPAs both Mark and Mark B and their clear typed
dated 07.01.2004 (with clear copies are Mark A1 and Mark B1
typed copies of GPAs)
5. Copy of receipt of money PW1/4
(OSR)
6. Photocopy of possession letter PW1/5
(OSR)
7. Original site plan PW1/6
8. 6 original photographs PW1/7 (colly.)
9. Copy of complaint dated PW1/8
15.11.2014 (OSR)
10. Bills/invoices of Diamond PW1/9 (colly.)
Security Agency
11. Complaint dated 21.11.2014 PW1/10
vide diary no.29B (OSR)
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 5 of 19
12. Complaint dated 21.01.2014 PW1/11 (copy to commissioner of
served on 22.11.2014 to police. PW1/12 (copy to Joint
Deputy Commissioner of Commissioner of Police)
Police and copy thereof Joint
Commissioner of Police
(OSR)
13. Bills of BSES Rajdhani Power PW1/13
Limited (OSR)
14. Copy of certified copy of PW1/14
order of RA/SDM (Sarita
Vihar) dated 10.10.2016
(OSR)
4. The plaintiff has examined PW2 from the O/o Registrar
of Companies and PW2 has proved the certificate of incorporation,
already tendered as Ex.PW1/1, Memorandum of Association and
Article of Association of the plaintiff company, tendered by PW2 as
Ex.PW2/1 colly; official from SDM Office Sarita Vihar is examined as
PW3 and PW3 has proved the order dated 10.10.2016 passed by the
SDM Sarita Vihar tendered by PW1 as Ex.PW1/14. PW4 is examined
from the complaint branch and has produced the original ... in respect
of complaint dated 21.11.2014, Ex.PW1/10, along with the BDR
No.29B dated 21.11.2014, PW5 is also examined to prove the
complaint and the DDR dated 21.11.2014 which is Ex.PW5/1. PW6
has produced the record in respect of complaint dated 24.11.2014
which is Ex.PW6/1, PW7 is examined from the O/o Sub RegistrarV,
Mehrauli who has produced the original record in respect of
registration of sale deed dated 27.06.2013 on 29.06.2013, the sale deed
is Ex.PW1/3. PW8 is the official from BSES who has produced the
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 6 of 19
record in respect of grant of temporary and permanent electricity
connection in the name of the plaintiff at the premises. The sanctions
and the bills are collectively tendered as Ex.PW1/13 Colly. PW9 is
examined from the Diamond Security Personnel who has proved the
bills issued towards security services by the security firm which were
tendered by plaintiff as Ex.PW1/9. Affidavit by way of evidence of
Srione Chauhan is tendered as Ex.PW10/A, who is examined as PW10
one of the witnesses to the registered sale deed . Sh. Vinod Kumar,
who has executed the sale deed as attorney holder of the .... of the
property has tendered his affidavit into evidence as Ex.PW11/A and is
examined as PW11.
5. On the strength of unrebutted of oral and documentary
evidence, the plaintiff has been able to establish that the plaintiff para
1 of affidavit, the certificate of incorporation is tendered as Ex.PW1/1
by PW1 is proved by PW2, and that the plaintiff has purchased the suit
property by way of registered sale deed from Sh. Vinod Kumar acting
as duly authorised attorney of the vendors as described in para 1 of the
sale deed tendered into evidence as Ex.PW1/3. The vendors are the co
sharers owner/zamindars of the entire Agriculture Land admeasuring 5
bigha 10 biswa in Khasra no.792, Part of Khata Khatauni no.227/237
situated at Village Madanpur Khadar Tehsil Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
and the property subject matter of the sale deed identified with the
boundaries and area under the schedule of the property under the sale
deed, Ex.PW1/3. The same is reproduced below:
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 7 of 19
"Schedule of the property:
(Conveyed under this deed)
All the piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Khasra
No.792 part measuring about 5 bigha 10 biswa.
Bounded by:
On the East: Khasra no.793 19 gattah
On the West: Road 20 gattha
On the South: Grave Yard 45 gattha
On the North: Other's Property 35 gattah"
6. As per the sale deed, the plaintiff has purchased the suit
property for a sum of Rs.75 lacs on 27.06.2013. The registered sale
deed is proved by examining the record keeper from the Office of the
Sub Registrar V Mehrauli examined as PW7. The plaintiff has also
examined the attesting witness to the registered sale deed dated
27.06.2013 to prove the due examination of sale deed dated
27.06.2013. The GPA holder has been examined as PW11. PW11 has
deposed to the effect that he as sold the property as the constituted
attorney of the owners of the suit property, namely Shri Ram Chander
son of Khushia, Shiv Dayal son of Chimman, Harlal son of Hira,
Harbans son of Tirkha, Tofa son of Ganga Sahai, Lekhi son of Ganga
Sahai, Sukhbir son of Sulhi, Baljeet son of Sulhi, Uday Chand son of
Bakshi, Lajja son of Bakshi, Bhagwat son of Khillu, Nathan son of
Khillu, Hem Raj son of Tek Chand, Suraj Mal son of Devi Sahai,
Jageram son of Gariba, Mamchand son of Hemlal, Chander Pal son of
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 8 of 19
Hem Lal, Parmal Singh son of Hem Lal, Dulia son of Lalji, Khillu son
of Lalji, Devla son of Bakshi, Amir Chand son of Samman, Khema
son of Samman, Nayadari daughter of Samman, Umrao son of Bhagwa
Sahai, Satdev Bidhuri son of Achpal , Shahmal son of Bhajjan, Balbir
Singh son of Chandu, Rattan Singh son of Chandu, Sukhbir son of
Chandu, Nathu son of Sampan, Chander pal son of Amar Singh,
Rameshwar son of Amar Singh, Jaikaran son of Bishamber Dayal,
Surinder Singh son of Narayan Singh, Ganga Sahai son of Narayan
Singh, Deva Singh son of Parmal Singh, Jagat Singh son of Parmal
Singh, Bharat Singh son of Parmal Singh, Satpal son of Trikha, Hatim
Singh son of Tirkha, Shiv Charan Vidhuri son of Ranbir, Dharma son
of Uday Ram, Layak Ram son of Uday Ram, Jahagir son of
Ghamandi, Raj Kumar son of Ghamandi, Kishan Sahai son of Gohar,
Jalhari son of Gohar, Ram Rikh son of Siria, Shiv Dayal son of
Harelal, Jay Ram son of Harlal, Kara Singh son of Yad Ram, Braham
Singh son of Yad Ram, Sugreev son of Yad Ram, Shamvir son of Yad
Ram, Gajraj Singh son of Harcharan, Tejpal Singh son of Harcharan,
Giani son of Billori, Gian Chand son of Billori, Rajbir son of Billor,
Rajender son of Billori all residents of Village Madanpur Khadar, New
Delhi in respect of their respective proportionate share in the
agricultural land admeasuring 9 bigha 14 biswa in Khasra No.792, part
of Khata Khatauni No.227/237 situated at Village Madanpur Khadar,
Tehsil Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and that he was appointed as their
lawful attorney vide two deeds of general power of attorneys both
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 9 of 19
dated 07.01.2004 which are Ex.PW11/1 (already marked as Mark A)
and Ex.PW11/2 (already marked as Mark B) and their clear typed
copies are Ex.PW11/1A (already marked as Mark A1) and
Ex.PW11/2A (already marked as Mark B1), respectively, and PW11
has identified his signatures on Ex.PW11/1 and Ex.PW11/2. By virtue
of said power of attorneys, inter alia, PW11 has deposed that he was
authorised to sell the respective share of land of the owners, which
comes to a total of about 5 bigha 10 biswa and/or any part thereof and
to enter into an agreement for sale and to receive the earnest money
and to issue receipts thereof and to obtain the necessary permission for
sale from the competent authority, and that in furtherance thereof, as
the constituted attorney of the owners, he has sold the suit property to
the plaintiff namely agricultural land measuring 5 bigha 10 biswa in
Khasra No.792, part of Khata Khatauni no.227/237 situated at Village
Madanpur Khadar, Tehsil Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, vide registered sale
deed dated 29.06.2013 registered as Document no.5707, Book No.1,
Volume no.12864, at pages 121 to 129 in the office of Sub Registrar
V, Mehrauli, New Delhi, certified copy of the same is already
Ex.PW1/3, PW11 has also identified his signatures on Ex.PW1/3 at
points A and the signatures of the Authorised Singatory of the plaintiff
at points B as well as of the witnesses. PW11 has further affirmed that
the sale consideration of Rs.75,00,000/ was paid by the plaintiff as per
Schedule of Payment shown in receipt of money which is already
Ex.PW1/4 on which the signatures at points A and signatures of
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 10 of 19
witnesses at points B,C, D and E are identified. PW11 has further
deposed that the possession of suit property was handed over to the
plaintiff on 27th June, 2013 by him and in this regard a possession
letter was also executed, the copy of the same is already Ex.PW1/5, on
which his signatures at points A, signatures of Mr. Jawad Ahmad
Siddiqui at points B and that of witnesses at points C, D, E and F are
identified. The suit property is properly identifiable and is demarcated
with a Wall/fencing.
7. In pursuance to the registered sale deed possession was
taken over by the plaintiff which is witnessed under the possession
letter tendered into evidence as Ex.PW1/5. The plaintiff has also
established that the plaintiff has fenced the property purchased and
possession of which is taken in terms of Ex.PW1/5 and that the
plaintiff has employed security guards towards better preservation and
maintenance of the property and in order to establish the employment
of services of security guards the plaintiff has examined AR of the
security agency as PW9. PW9 has proved that the security agency has
posted the security guards sine 26.06.2013. The plaintiff has also
tendered into evidence the bills in respect of electricity consumption
charges by examining official from the office of BSES Rajdhani as
PW8. The bills are tendered into evidence as Ex.PW1/13 (colly.). The
plaintiff has therefore established that he plaintiff is the owner in
possession of the suit property.
8. An injunction is a judicial remedy by which a person is
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 11 of 19
ordered to refrain from doing something, or is ordered to do a
particular act or thing. The right to an injunction is governed by the
provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Part 3 of the Specific Relief Act
lays down preventive reliefs made available under the law, injunctions
being in the nature of preventive relief is granted at the discretion of
the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual or mandatory. It is
Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act which encapsulates the
circumstances/grounds in/on which the discretionary reliefs may be
granted. Section 38 is reproduced hereunder:
38. 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;
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 12 of 19
(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.
Section 38 is to be read in conjunction with Section 41 which
stipulates bars to the relief of injunction. Section 41 is reproduced
hereunder:
41. Injunction when refused. An injunction cannot be
granted
(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial
proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the
injunction is sought unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a
multiplicity of proceedings;
(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting
any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the
injunction is sought;
(c) to restrain any person from applying to any
legislative body;
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting
any proceeding in a criminal matter;
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of
which would not be specifically enforced;
(f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it
is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 13 of 19
(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has
acquiesced;
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained
by any other useful mode of proceeding except in case of breach of
trust;
(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been
such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court;
(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.
9. A perpetual injunction is granted after a final
determination of the rights of the parties. It is made at the
determination of the suit for giving effect to, and protecting rights. It
obviates the necessity of bringing action after action in respect of
every infringement of the rights so determined. An injunction is a
judicial process by which one who has invaded, or is threatening to
invade the legal rights of another, and is restrained from continuing or
commencing such wrongful act. It is a specific order of the court
forbidding the commission of a wrong threatened, or the continuance
of a wrongful course of action already begun, or in some areas (when
it is called a mandatory injunction) commanding active restitution of
the former state of things.
A perpetual injunction may be granted to prevent the
breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff, 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
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 14 of 19
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.
The principle on which injunctions are granted is not that an injunction
will not hurt a party against whom it is granted, but that the plaintiff
satisfies the court that he has made out a case within the law to be
clothed with an order of injunction from the court. The word
'obligation' is very wide in its application. S. 2(a) of Specific Relief
Act, defines the term obligation as every duty enforceable by law. It is
a tie or bond which constrains a person to do or suffer something. It
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. It is a duty enforceable by law. Where no
obligation is spelt out, injunction cannot be granted. The breach of
obligation must be substantial, not trifling inconvenience, or invasions
of a theoretical or conjectural character, or of a trivial nature. The
breach alleged must be such as would cause substantial injury. The
'obligation' contemplated in s.38 is legal obligation; one capable of
being enforced by law. Injunction cannot be granted to prevent acts
which do not cause legal injury. An injunction will not be granted
where the plaintiff has a remedy in his own power and an injunction
cannot be granted to restrain an actionable wrong for which damages
are an adequate remedy. The court may interfere by way of injunction
to prevent an injury in respect of which there is a legal remedy, in
cases where the injury is continuous and irreparable. Where a right
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 15 of 19
exists or is created, by contract, by the ownership of property or
otherwise, cognizable by law, a violation of that right will be
prohibited, unless there are other considerations of policy or
expediency which forbid a resort to this prohibitive remedy. The
restraining power of equity, extends therefore through the whole range
of rights and duties which are recognized by the law, and would be
applied to every case of intended violation were it not for certain
reasons of expediency and policy which control and limit the exercise.
Where a plaintiff establishes his right which has been infringed and
that further infringement is threatened to a material extent, he is
entitled to an injunction to restrain the threatened infringement.
10. The plaintiff has successfully established that the
plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff
has also established that the defendant has been interfering in the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property of which he is
owner in possession and in respect of the interference and the
obstructions caused the plaintiff was constrained to lodge complaints
against the defendant. The PW1 has deposed to the effect that on
15.11.2014 around 12 PM, the defendant visited the suit property and
started to quarrel with the security guard, employed by the plaintiff
through Diamond Security Personnel Agency. The defendant also tried
to dismantle the Board of the plaintiff as well as the guard room built
on the suit property. The defendant also extended life threats to the
security guard and asked him to run away from the suit property
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 16 of 19
immediately. The security guard of said agency immediately informed
the representatives of the plaintiff who in turn called the PCR and with
the intervention of the local police and thus the possession of the
plaintiff was saved. However, the defendant left the place with further
threats that he will see how the plaintiff constructs a school on the said
property. In this regard, plaintiff also filed a written complaint dated
15.11.2014 with the police station Jaitpur, Delhi. Copy of complaint
dated 15.11.2014 is Ex.PW1/8. The bills issued by Diamond Security
Personnel, Agency, hiring of security guards at the suit premises since
end of June 2013 onwards are Ex.PW1/9 (colly.) That again on
21.11.2014 around 07:30 in the morning the defendant reached the suit
property, this time with a 57 persons and again tried to forcefully
enter in the suit property. The defendant again threatened the security
guard of the plaintiff that they will come again and will not allow the
school to be constructed on the said land. The plaintiff again reported
the matter to the local police and filed a written complaint vide diary
no.29B dated 21.11.2014 at 10:30 a.m. Copy of said complaint dated
21.11.2014 is Ex.PW1/10. That on 22.11.2014, the plaintiff wrote
another complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police South East
District Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, with copy the Joint Commissioner of
Police, Eastern Range, Delhi Police, New Delhi. Copies of the said
complaints sent to Deputy Commissioner of Police and Joint
Commissioner of Police are Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12 respectively.
The complaints are proved by examining the daily diary register from
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 17 of 19
the O/o the DCP, South East and proved by PW6 and PW7. It is
therefore established that the plaintiff as owner is entitled to peaceful
enjoyment of the property described as entire Agriculture Land
admeasuring 5 bigha 10 biswa in Khasra no.792, Part of Khata
Khatauni no.227/237 situated at Village Madanpur Khadar Tehsil
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. without any interference from the defendant
and that the defendant has invaded and threatened to invade the
plaintiff right to the property described as entire Agriculture Land
admeasuring 5 bigha 10 biswa in Khasra no.792, Part of Khata
Khatauni no.227/237 situated at Village Madanpur Khadar Tehsil
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. and its peaceful possession and enjoyment.
11. In view of the aforestated discussion, the suit for
permanent injunction is decreed ex parte in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant. The defendant is restrained from interfering in
the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over property described as
entire Agriculture Land admeasuring 5 bigha 10 biswa in Khasra
no.792, Part of Khata Khatauni no.227/237 situated at Village
Madanpur Khadar Tehsil Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and from creating
third party rights in respect of the property described as entire
Agriculture Land admeasuring 5 bigha 10 biswa in Khasra no.792,
Part of Khata Khatauni no.227/237 situated at Village Madanpur
Khadar Tehsil Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
12. No order as to costs.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 18 of 19
14. File be consigned to the record room after preparation of
the decree.
Pronounced in the open Court (Neelofer Abida Perveen)
.
on this 30th March , 2017 Addl. District Judge04, SouthEast, SaketCourt, New Delhi.
The judgment contains 19 pages all checked and signed by me.
CS No.230/16 Tarbia Education Foundation Vs. Krishan Bidhuri Page 19 of 19