Delhi District Court
) Sh. Piyush Jain vs ) Sh. Padam Chand Jain on 8 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI. GAURAV GUPTA, CIVIL JUDGE1,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CS No: 106/11
Unique case ID No: 02405C0379462011
1) Sh. Piyush Jain
2) Sh. Chandresh Jain,
Both sons of Sh. R.C. Jain,
R/o. WZ603B, Village Palam,
New Delhi110045 ... Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Sh. Padam Chand Jain
S/o. Late Sh. Harsahai Mal Jain,
R/o. WZ1002, Panchmarhi Tower,
Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, (U.P).
2) Sh. Sanjay Sharma
S/o. Late Sh. Rattan Bihari Sharma,
R/o. WZ 603B, Village Palam,
New Delhi110045 ... Defendants
Date of Institution : 02.07.2009
Date on which judgment was reserved: 15.10.2012
Date of pronouncing judgment: 08.11.2012
Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 1 of 24
C.S No. 106/11
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND DAMAGES
J U D G M E N T
1. This suit before me has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking a relief of mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and damages against the defendants.
Plaintiffs' case
2. The brief facts of the case as averred on behalf of the plaintiffs are that the plaintiffs are the joint owners of built up property measuring 625 square yards, which is part and partial of property bearing number WZ603B in khasra no. 60/21/2, situated at village Palam New Delhi 45. It has been averred that the same was purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant no. 1 out of his entire 1/4th undivided share that is out of the total land measuring 2500 square yards. The same was purchased by the plaintiffs by way of transfer documents i.e registered GPA, registered will, agreement to sell, affidavit and cash receipt, all dated 30/04/1998 and the physical vacant possession of the same was also delivered to the plaintiffs.
Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 2 of 24 C.S No. 106/11
3. It has further been averred that the defendant no.1 was in urgent need of accommodation as he had to vacate the government accommodation provided to him by his employer and upon his request the father on the plaintiffs had out of love and affection and without any consideration, inducted defendant no.1 as a licensee in respect of a portion measuring 175 square yards out of the total purchased property measuring 625 square yards as shown in red colour in the site plan. It has further been averred that the defendant no.1 on 20/04/2001 had illegally trespassed into the tin shed portion towards south direction, the open space situated in between the tin shed portion and the Jain Dharamshala wall and the open space / passage situated in the west direction of the constructed portion.
4. It has yet further been averred that defendant no.1 had illegally and arbitrarily dragged the plaintiff into false and frivolous litigation causing immense mental, physical and financial hardship to the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs revoked the license of the defendant no.1 by serving a notice upon the defendant no.1 which was also replied to by the defendant no. 1. It has further been averred that later the plaintiffs also came to know that the defendant no.1 has illegally admitted defendant Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 3 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 no. 2 as a tenant in the suit property and consequently, a notice was also served upon the defendant no. 2.
5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that despite service of notice upon the defendants, the defendants have till date not vacated the suit property and hence the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the present suit.
Defendants' Case
6. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement whereby they denied and controverted the averments as made in the plaint. It is pertinent to mention here that alongwith their written statement, the defendants had also filed a counter claim against the plaintiffs which was separated from the main suit vide order dated 18.08.2009.
7. The defendants took preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the present suit. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to seek an equally efficacious remedy of possession of suit property and as such the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable. It was further submitted that defendant no.1 is the absolute owner of the land measuring 1250 square yards falling within khasra no.60/21/2, village Palam, New Delhi. It was Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 4 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 submitted that while defendant no.1 is in the possession of property built on land measuring about 800 square yards including open passage, land measuring 450 square yards is in the unauthorized use and occupation of the plaintiffs since 30.04.1998.
8. It was further submitted that at the time of execution of General Power of Attorney etc dated 30.04.1998, Sh. Ramesh Chand Jain, father of the plaintiffs, did not pay even a single penny towards consideration. Although cash receipt dated 30.04.1998 was signed by Defendant no.1 but the original thereof was retained by defendant no.1 as the same was to be delivered only upon receipt of the consideration amount of Rs. 2 Lacs. It was further submitted that as no payment was made, the General Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1998 was without consideration and was rightly cancelled vide duly registered cancellation deed dated 24.07.2000 and that the plaintiffs were aware about the same. The defendant no.1 also denied that he had ever delivered vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.
9. It was yet further submitted that as the documents executed on 30.04.1998 were without consideration, the plaintiffs had opted to get another General Power of Attorney dated 24.07.2000 Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 5 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 executed from the defendant no.1 in respect of land measuring 450 square yards and the earlier General Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1998 in respect of property measuring 625 square yards was cancelled by means of cancellation deed dated 24.07.2000. It was yet further submitted that the defendant no. 2 is the lawful tenant inducted by the defendant no.1 in his premises and that the notice sent to defendant no.2 by the plaintiff is without any privity of contract and without any cause of action.
10.Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a replication to the written statement of the defendants by way of which they denied the contents of the written statement and reiterated & reaffirmed the averments as made in the plaint.
Issues
11.From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 01.09.2009, following issues were framed by the court for determination :
a) Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as claimed by them without payment of court fees on the circle rate of the suit property? OPD
b) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the present suit? OPD
c) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction? OPP Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 6 of 24 C.S No. 106/11
d) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? OPP
e) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the recovery of damages, if so, at what rate? OPP
f) Relief.
Plaintiffs' Evidence
12.In their evidence, the plaintiffs examined six witnesses. Plaintiff no.1 was examined as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of his affidavit Ex.P1 and relied upon the following documents:
i) Copy of General Power of Attorney dated 24.07.09 as Ex.PW1/1(OSR);
ii) Site plan as Ex. PW1/2;
iii) Copy of General Power of Attorney dated 30.04.98 as
Ex.PW1/3(OSR);
iv) Copy of Will dated 30.04.98 as Ex.PW1/4(OSR);
v) Copy of agreement of sale dated 30.04.98 as
Ex.PW1/5(OSR);
vi) Copy of Affidavit dated 30.04.98 as Ex.PW1/6(OSR);
vii) Copy of Receipt dated 30.04.98 as Mark A;
viii) Bank account statements as Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/11;
ix) Copy of CBSE certificate as Ex.PW1/12(OSR);
x) Mutation order dated 31.03.2004 as Ex.PW1/13; Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 7 of 24 C.S No. 106/11
xi) Electricity bill as Ex.PW1/14;
xii) Copy of legal notice dated 18.01.2009 as Ex.PW1/15;
xiii) Postal receipt as Ex.PW1/16;
xiv) Copy of legal notice dated 30.03.2009 as Ex.PW1/18;
xv) Postal receipt as Ex.PW1/19; and xvi) AD card as Ex.PW1/20.
13.Plaintiffs also relied upon the following documents :
i) Rent agreement as Ex.PW1/D1;
ii) Income tax record pertaining to Defendant no.1 as
Ex.DW3/P1 & Ex.DW3/P2;
iii) Certified copy of judgment in MCA 03/10 dated 31.08.2010
as Ex.DW3/P3; and
iv) Copy of notice dated 30.04.98 as Ex.DW3/P4.
14.PW1 deposed on the lines of the averments as made in the plaint. He was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
15.Sh. Chitranjan, LDC from the office of Sub registrar, Janakpuri was examined as PW2 who was summoned with the record of registration of GPA & Will dated 30.04.1998. He proved the Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 8 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 following documents:
i) Copy of registered GPA dt. 30.04.98 as Ex.PW2/A(OSR); and
ii) Copy of registered will dt. 30.04.98 as Ex.PW2/B(OSR).
16.Sh. Sunil Kumar, Patwari,Tehsil Palam was examined as PW3 who was summoned with the fard/khatauni in respect of land falling in khasra no. 60/21/2. He proved the copy of khatauni as Ex.PW3/A(OSR) as per which Premchand Jain, Ghasiram Jain, Paadamchand Jain & Rameshchand Jain, all sons of Late Sh. Har Sahaimal Jain were the recorded khatedars holding equal share in the property.
17.Sh. Satya Narayan, House tax Inspector, MCD was examined as PW4. He proved the Mutation order dated 31.03.04 in respect of property bearing no. WZ603B, Khasra no.60/21/2, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A, as per which the said property stood mutated in the name of plaintiffs. The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants despite granting opportunity.
18.Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jindal from BSES was examined as PW5 who was summoned with the record pertaining to the domestic electricity connection installed at the property in question. He proved a copy of the record as Ex.PW5/A(Colly) (OSR). The Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 9 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 witness was crossexamined at length and was discharged.
19.Sh. Dinesh Kumar Verma from Syndicate Bank was examined as PW6 who produced the account statements of Piyush jain, Sanju Jain, Sapna Jain, Rachna Jain and Rooplata Jain. Certified copies of the same are Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/6.
20.Thereafter, plaintiffs's evidence was closed and the matter was listed for defence evidence.
Defendants' Evidence
21.In their defence, the defendants examined three witnesses. Sh.
Kishan Kumar, LDC from the office of Sub Registrar, Janakpuri was examined as DW1 who was summoned with the record of cancellation deed dated 24.07.2000. He proved a certified copy of the registered cancellation deed dated 24.07.2000 as Ex.DW1/1(OSR).
22.Sh. Narender Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Prem Chand Jain was examined as DW2 who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.DW2/1. The witness deposed on the lines of the averments made in the written statement, was crossexamined and discharged.
Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 10 of 24 C.S No. 106/11
23.Defendant no.1 himself stepped into the witness box as DW3 and tendered his evidence by way of his affidavit which is Ex.DW3/A. He relied upon the following documents:
i) Certified copy of cancellation deed dated 24.07.2000 already exhibited as Ex.DW1/1; and
ii) Copy of intimation dated 13.07.09 alongwith speed post receipt as Ex.DW3/1(colly.)
24.Defendants also relied upon certified copy of order dated 18.08.09 of Sh. Vikas Dhull, the then Ld. ASCJ as Ex.PW1/D1.
25.DW3 also deposed on the lines of the averments as made in the written statement. He was cross examined at length by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs. Thereafter defence evidence was closed.
26. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and perused the entire case record. My issuewise findings are as follows :
ISSUE NO.1 "Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as claimed by them without payment of court fees on the circle rate of the suit property? OPD" Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 11 of 24 C.S No. 106/11
27.The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiffs have alleged that defendant no.1 was admitted as a licensee in the suit property and that the defendants also trespassed into the tin shed portion towards south side, which implies that the possession of the suit property is not with the plaintiffs. It was further submitted that in the garb of the relief of mandatory injunction, the plaintiffs are actually seeking possession of the suit property. It was further submitted that a suit for possession has to be valued in terms of section 7(v)(e) of the Court fees act i.e. on the basis of the market value of the suit property and ad valorem court fee has to be paid on the plaint.
28.In support of his argument, Ld. Counsel placed reliance upon 1975 Rajdhani law reporter 485. This argument of the Ld. Counsel deserves merit however, in Southern Roadways ltd. Vs. S.M. Krishnan (1989) 4 SCC 603, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a settled law that a licensee has no possession of his own and his possession is that of a true owner. Further, in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370, it was held Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 12 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 by the full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :
"62. Possession is an incidence of ownership and can be transferred by the owner of an immovable property to another such as in a mortgage or lease. A licensee holds possession on behalf of the owner. Xxx
64. There is a presumption that possession of a person, other than the owner, if at all it is to be called possession, is permissive on behalf of the titleholder. Further, possession of the past is one thing, and the right to remain or continue in future is another thing. It is the latter which is usually more in controversy than the former, and it is the latter which has seen much abuse and misuse before the courts.
65. A suit can be filed by the title holder for recovery of possession or it can be one for ejectment of an exlessee or for mandatory injunction requiring a person to remove himself or it can be a suit under section 6 of the specific relief act to recover possession."
29.From above it is clear that where a licensee has been admitted by the true owner, the possession still lies with the true owner. Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 13 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 Hence, the true owner is well within his rights to institute a suit for mandatory injunction without actually claiming possession. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO.2 "Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the present suit? OPD."
30.The onus to prove this issue was also upon the defendants. Ld. Counsel for the defendants has raised three pronged arguments in support of defendants' case. Firstly, it was argued that the documents viz. GPA, agreement of sale, will, affidavit and receipt are not a substitute of a registered sale deed and these documents do not have the effect of transfer of a title in an immovable property. In support of his argument, ld. Counsel for the defendants placed reliance upon the following judgments :
AIR 2003 Delhi 120, 85/2000 DLT 536 (DB) and 128 (2006) DLT 407 (DB).
31.In order to counter the argument, ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon 2002 II AD (Delhi) 737, wherein the court had recognised the concept of sale through power of attorney. However, the above decision has been overruled by the Hon'ble Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 14 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 Supreme Court in Suraj lamp & industries pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & anr. 2011(4) CCC 558 (SC). It has been held as follows :
"18. We have merely drawn attention to and reiterated the well settled legal position that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not 'transfers' or 'sales' and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances..."
32.To this the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs brought my attention to the last few lines of para18 of Suraj lamps(supra). The same is reproduced herein below :
"18.... We make it clear that if the documents relating to 'SA/GPA/WILL transactions' have been accepted, acted upon by the DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed merely on account of this decision."
33.Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs pointed out that the facts of the instant case are squarely covered within the exceptions as carved out in the said judgment. Mutation/assessment order dt. 31.03.04 Ex.PW4/A would show that the property in question stands Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 15 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 mutated in the names of the two plaintiffs. In the light of the ratio of the decision in Suraj lamps (supra), the judgment shall not have the effect of disturbing the same.
34.Coming to the second contention, it was argued that as the consideration amount was not paid by the plaintiffs, the defendant no.1 retained the original receipt and later the defendant no.1 revoked the GPA. It has been admitted by the defendant no.1 that he had executed all the documents dt. 30.04.1998. viz., GPA/WILL etc. Including the receipt. In the said documents, it has been stated that the defendant no.1 has received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2 lacs. Merely having receipt in his possession does not show that the plaintiffs did not pay the consideration amount. In the agreement to sell, which is an admitted document by the defendant no.1, he has admitted that he has received the entire sale consideration. Under section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence contrary to the written contents of a document cannot be given.
35.Further, in order to show that defendant no.1 could not have revoked the GPA, ld. Counsel for plaintiffs placed reliance upon Kuldeep Singh Suri vs. Surinder Singh 1999 RLR Delhi 20 wherein after going through the record, court had opined that the Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 16 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 GPA was irrevocable and subsisting and that the deed of cancellation would be of no consequence in such a case. Further in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Hardip Kaur vs. Kailash & anr. 193 (2012) DLT 168, the court after examining a catena of judgments on the point, including Suraj lamps(supra), held that :
"24... (ii)The agreement to sell 'of itself' may not create any interest in the property under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but the agreement along with the payment of the entire sale consideration, handing over of the possession, execution of the receipt, affidavit, will, indemnity bond and irrevocable General Power Attorney create "an interest in the property" within the meaning of Section 202 of the Contract Act.
(iii) The words "an interest in property which forms the subject matter of the agency" in Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 are of wider amplitude than the words "an interest in or charge on such property" in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Where the seller has received the sale consideration in pursuance of the agreement to sell and has delivered the possession to the purchaser, the purchaser would have interest in the property within the meaning of Section 202 of the Contract Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 17 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 Act.
(vi) The agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, receipt, affidavit, will and indemnity bond executed contemporaneously constitute one transaction and they have to be read and interpreted together as if they are one document. The true nature of the transaction between the parties is the agreement to transfer the suit property by the plaintiff to defendant No.1.
There is no clause in any of the documents that the plaintiff can claim back the possession of the suit property in any situation. Rather, the plaintiff has agreed not to cancel/revoke any document and not to claim back the possession under any circumstances. The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to recover the possession of the suit property. If the plaintiff was aggrieved by any unauthorized construction, the plaintiff's remedy was to seek injunction to stop the alleged unauthorized construction or to have approached the Municipal Authorities to take action against the unauthorized construction.
(ix) The purchaser would though not be the classical owner of the suit property as would an owner be under a duly registered sale deed, but surely he would have better rights/entitlement of possession of the suit property than the plaintiff. A right to Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 18 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 possession of an immovable property arises not only from a complete ownership right in the property but having a better title or a better entitlement/right to the possession of the property that qua the person who is in actual physical possession thereof.
(xi) The General Power of Attorney dated 5th June, 1989 is irrevocable in view of Section 202 of the Contract Act. The plaintiff, therefore, had no right to terminate the said General Power of Attorney. The General Power of Attorney is legal, valid and subsisting. The revocation of the General Power of Attorney by the plaintiff is, therefore, of no consequence."
36.On applying the ratio of the above judgments to the facts of the present case, it would become clear that by virtue of the documents, General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell etc, plaintiffs had acquired an interest in the property within the meaning of Section 202 of the Contract Act. From the terms of the said documents, it is established that the General Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1998 was irrevocable and the same could not be revoked. The cancellation deed dated 24.07.2000 would have no effect.
Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 19 of 24 C.S No. 106/11
37.Another argument of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants is that a second General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, will etc, all dated 24.07.2000 were executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiffs whereby a land measuring 450 square yards in same property was sold to the plaintiffs. As discussed above, the first General Power of Attorney was irrevocable as the same could not be cancelled by way of a subsequent General Power of Attorney. Further, onus to prove the second General Power of Attorney etc was upon the defendants but no evidence on the point was adduced by the defendants. Rather, throughout the defendants have been claiming the plaintiff to be in unauthorized occupation of 450 square yards which they are now claiming to have been sold to the plaintiffs. Therefore, this stand of the defendants remains not proved.
38.From the above, it can be concluded that the General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, will etc, all dated 30.04.1998, were executed by the defendant no.1 by virtue of which plaintiffs have acquired an interest within the meaning of Section 202 of Contract Act and the cancellation deed has no effect thereupon. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.
Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 20 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 ISSUE NO.3 "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction? OPP."
39.The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. In view of the findings of issue no.2, it has become clear that the plaintiffs had purchased the property measuring 625 square yards from the defendant no.1 and had acquired an interest in the same. It is admitted case of both the parties that a school building is existing on a area measuring 450 square yards that forms part of the property in question measuring 625 square yards. The remaining portion measuring 175 square yards out of 625 square yards is in the occupation of the defendants. As the entire property measuring 625 square yards has been proved to have been purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant no.1 and the defendants have failed to show any right, title or interest in the property, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that the defendant no.1 is a licensee in the said property.
40.It has been proved that legal notices Ex. PW1/15 and Ex.
PW1/18 were served upon the defendants as they admitted replying to the same. By virtue of the notice Ex. PW1/15, the Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 21 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 licence of defendant no.1 stood terminated with effect from 15.02.2009. After the termination of license, the status of defendant no.1 in the property can be only that of an unauthorized occupant liable to be evicted.
41.In so far as, the status of defendant no.2 in the suit property is concerned, it is the admitted case of both sides that he had been admitted as a tenant in the suit premises by defendant no.1. It is a settled proposition of law that no one can confer to another, a title better than his own. As the defendant no.1 has been found to be in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises, the status of defendant no.2 also cannot be any better than him and accordingly he is also liable to be evicted being an unauthorized occupant. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.4 "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? OPP."
42.In view of the findings of issue nos. 2 and 3, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 22 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 ISSUE NO.5 "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the recovery of damages, if so, at what rate? OPP".
43.The onus to prove this issue was also upon the plaintiff. As discussed above, the defendants have been found to be in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises, they are liable to pay charges for the use and occupation of the suit premises with effect from 15.02.2009 i.e. the date of termination of the license. The plaintiffs have claimed damages at the rate of 15,000/ per month from the defendants. However, the plaintiffs have not led any evidence to show that a similar property in the same locality would have fetched such a rent. The amount of Rs. 15,000/ appears to be on the higher side. Damages at the rate of 5,000/ per month would adequately serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
RELIEF
44.In the light of foregoing discussions and findings, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The plaintiffs are held entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to remove Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 23 of 24 C.S No. 106/11 themselves from the suit property bearing no. WZ603B, falling in Khasra No.60/21/2, village Palam, New Delhi110045 measuring 175 square yards as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The plaintiffs are also held entitled to damages at the rate of 5000/ per month from the defendants with effect from 15.02.2009 till the date of realization on payment of appropriate court fees. The plaintiffs are also held entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in their favour and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants or their representatives from creating any third party interest in the suit property. Plaintiffs are also held entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Gaurav Gupta)
on 08th November, 2012 Civil JudgeI/Dwarka Courts,
South West District,
Delhi.
Piyush Jain & Anr. vs. Padam Chand & Anr. Page 24 of 24
C.S No. 106/11