Delhi District Court
Shri Lalit Chopra vs Shri Ml Chopra on 18 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA :
CIVIL JUDGE-1 ,SOUTH DISTRICT ,NEW DELHI
Suit No. 101/11
Case ID No.02406C0021972011
SHRI LALIT CHOPRA
S/o Shri ML Chopra
R/o W-23/15, Western Avenue,
Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062 ...........Plaintiff
Versus
SHRI ML CHOPRA
S/o Late Shri BD Chopra
R/o N-27, Lajpat Nagar-IV,
New Delhi ...............Defendant
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of Institution : 01.02.2011
Date of reserving the Order : 26.09.2011
Date of pronouncement : 18.11.2011
JUDGMENT:
1 By this judgment, I propose to dispose off the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property as shown in colour red and yellow in the site plan as also restraining the defendant from entering the suit property or making any demonstration or threaten the tenant of the plaintiff from the portion shown in yellow in the site plan.
Brief facts culled out from the plaint 2 The plaintiff is the owner and in peaceful possession of House No. W-23/15, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi since 1996. The part of the ground floor, which is shown within yellow colour in the site plan, has been presently leased out to Ms. Mary Storm by the plaintiff.
Suit no. 101/11 Page No. 1/5Remaining portion of the ground floor, first floor and second floor, mezzanine which is shown in red colour in the site plan attached is in possession of the plaintiff for his own use.
3 The plaintiff purchased land measuring 1000 sq. yrds situated in Khasra no. 49/22, Khatoni no. 171/138 situated in revenue estate of village Deoli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi from Shri Vinay Aggarwal son of Shri. Gopal Aggarwal R/o D-147, East of Kailash, New Delhi on 15.05.1996 for a valid part and subsequent consideration. The said previous owner Sh. Vinay Aggarwal also executed a GPA in favour of the plaintiff which was registered in the office of Sub registrar and also handed over physical possession of the above land on the said day to the plaintiff. The plaintiff constructed a house consisting of ground floor, first floor and mezzanine floors over the said land out of his own resources and funds and started living therein, his possession in the suit property is peaceful without any interruption from any side. The plaintiff is residing in the said property as an owner and landlord.
4 The defendant is father of the plaintiff and presently residing in a separate accommodation with the mother of the plaintiff at the address given above.
5 In the year 1998 the plaintiff had to go from Delhi and stayed away for a period of five years. In 1998 the defendant wanted to reside and stay in the suit property as caretaker during the period plaintiff was travelling away from Delhi and till his return to Delhi. To this the plaintiff had agreed and gave the possession of the suit property to the defendant for a fixed period as licensee.
6 During this period of stay, the defendant handle the assessment of the House Tax. During this period of stay of the plaintiff away from Delhi the defendant as caretaker of the suit property got assessment order passed from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of the house tax of the suit property in his own name and further Suit no. 101/11 Page No. 2/5 also got prepared ration card and subsequently election card in his name at the address of the suit property. The municipal Corporation of Delhi started realizing the house tax in respect of the suit property in the defendant's name. As the plaintiff is defendant's only son and during the relevant point of time there was cordial relations between them therefore, the plaintiff did not object regarding the assessment of the house tax in respect of the suit property in the name of the defendant. The defendant also told and assured the plaintiff that although the house tax is assessed in his name but he has no claim over the suit property.
7 Since last sometime for about six months the relations between the plaintiff and defendant are not cordial. The defendant under strong influence of his daughter and son in law has developed malafide intentions towards the plaintiff and started threatening the plaintiff of taking forceful possession and start living in the suit property to dispossess the plaintiff forcefully from the suit property and instead put his daughter and son in law in the suit property.
8 On 29.12.10 the defendant came to the suit property and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff with the help of his son in law, daughter and their associates. The defendant has also threatened that he would by creating nuisance will make plaintiff's tenants to vacate the property which he intends to grab also. The tenants are otherwise very peace loving foreign nationals from USA and UK. Thus, apart from embarrassment it will cause lot of financial loss to the plaintiff. A complaint of the said incident was reported by the plaintiff to the SHO PS Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
9 On 25.01.2011 the plaintiff had a meeting with the defendant and the plaintiff requested the defendant to quit his adverse attitude and malafide intention towards the plaintiff and to neglect his malafide intention to dispossess the plaintiff and take forceful possession of the suit property and also to leave the idea to put another person in the suit Suit no. 101/11 Page No. 3/5 property. The defendant became furious and threatened the plaintiff that he would be forcefully dispossessed from the suit property and the physical possession would be taken forcefully within 5-6 days as the defendant has other persons to support him in his act in dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property.
Discussion and Decision 10 The defendant was duly served with summons and was proceeded with ex-parte. Plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence. He has exhibited the site plan of the suit property as PW1/1. Copy of Power of Attorney dated 15.05.1196 as PW1/2. Copy of the bill of telephone dated 08.12.2010 issued by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Delhi as PW1/3. Copy of electricity bills issued in the name of plaintiff for the period of August, 2010 by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd as PW1/4. Copy of his passport bearing no. G1826125 exhibited as PW1/5. Election identity card bearing no. WMU1068139 issued by Electoral Registration Officer as PW1/6. Copy of rent agreement of the ground floor of the suit property as PW1/7. The original memorandum of article of association of Astral Collections Pvt. Ltd. alongwith certificate of incorporation issued by Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana exhibited as PW1/9. Copy of importer Exporter Code Registration dated 25.06.2006 as PW1/10. The photographs of the suit property filed by the plaintiff in the present suit as PW1/11. The legal notice as well as the proof of service have also been exhibited. In his affidavit filed by way of evidence, plaintiff has categorically reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. The documents produced establish that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property himself and through his tenant. Therefore the relief restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff or his tenant can be granted. However, in my view the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit property. The claim for ownership is based only on a Registered GPA and cannot be accepted by this court. It is also admitted by the Suit no. 101/11 Page No. 4/5 plaintiff that the defendant was paying the House Tax in his own name. There is no averment that the plaintiff and his father do not form a joint family. The title of the plaintiff is also not clearly established. In that view of the matter, I do not consider it appropriate to grant any further relief to the plaintiff, the relief claimed being discretionary in nature. 11 The suit is partly decreed. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court Harjyot Singh Bhalla,
dated 18.11.2011 Civil Judge-1, South District
New Delhi.
Suit no. 101/11 Page No. 5/5