Delhi District Court
All Residents Of vs Sh.Vijay Kumar Puri on 28 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -11, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No. 18607/2016
Sh. Rajinder Nath Puri (Since deceased)
Through his LRs
(i) Sh. Sanjay Puri,
S/o late Sh. Kamal Puri,
(ii) Sh. Ajay Puri,
S/o Late Sh. Kamal Puri
All residents of :-
D-141, Kamla Nagar, Delhi ....... Plaintiffs
Versus
Sh.Vijay Kumar Puri
S/o Late Sh. Rajinder Nath Puri,
R/o D-141,Kamla Nagar,
Delhi-110007. .....Defendant
Suit for recovery of arrears of mesne profits
of Rs.4,80,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum
and for pendente lite and future mesne profits.
Date of institution of the Suit : 16.11.2006
Date on which judgment
was reserved : 13.04.2018
Date of decision : 28.04.2018
Decision : Suit Decreed
Suit No.18607 /2016
Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 1 of 28
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of damages/ mesne profits. The version of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of property bearing no. D-141, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 having purchased the same out of his own funds vide registered sale deed dated 07.01.1959. The defendant is the son of the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant and his brother Sh. Shyam Sunder Puri were permitted by the plaintiff to stay in the suit property as gratuitous licensees. The plaintiff gave three rooms, one bathroom, two toilets and one kitchen situated on the ground floor to the defendant.
2. It is further the case of the plaintiff that due to the cruel behaviour of the defendant and his brother the plaintiff terminated the license of the defendant and his brother and issued legal notice dated 06.02.2004 calling upon them to vacate the portions of the suit property in their occupation. However, despite service of the said legal Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 2 of 28 notice, the defendant and his brother did not vacate the suit property.
3. The plaintiff thereafter filed civil suit no. 198/2004 (new no. 18595/16) titled as Sh. Rajender Nath Puri v. Vijay Kumar Puri & another against the defendant and his brother Sh. Shyam Sunder Puri praying for a decree mandatory injunction directing the defendant and his brother to vacate the suit property. The plaintiff claims that after termination of license the possession of the defendant in the suit property is illegal and unauthorized and the defendant is liable to pay damages/ mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property. The plaintiff has claimed that in case the portion which is in possession of the defendant is let out the same could easily fetch a rent of Rs. 15000/- per month. The plaintiff has, therefore, claimed damages/ mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from 01.03.2004 till 31.10.2006 amounting to Rs. 4,80,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. The plaintiff has further claimed pendente lite and Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 3 of 28 future damages/ mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the delivery of vacant possession of the portion of the suit property in possession of the defendant.
4. The defendant refuted the claim of the plaintiff by filing his written statement The defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff is not the sole owner of the suit property. The defendant denied that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff out of his own funds. The defendant further pleaded that the suit property was purchased with the aid of jewellery and stridhan of the mother of the defendant and also with the aid of ancestral property and therefore the suit property is HUF property and the defendant is also a co-owner of the suit property. The defendant denied that he is a licensee in the suit property under the plaintiff and averred that the plaintiff had no right to issue notice to him. The defendant denied that he is liable to vacate the suit property or pay any damages/ mesne profits or any interest. The defendant denied that in case the portion in Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 4 of 28 possession of the defendant is let out the same would fetch a rent of Rs. 15000/- per month. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed vide order dated 26.03.2007:
(1) Whether the suit bad for want of cause of action ? OPD (2) Whether the suit is bad for suppression of material fact ?OPD (3) Whether the suit is bad under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD (5) Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 CPC ? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of mesne profits ? If so, at what rate and for which period ?
OPP Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 5 of 28 (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest ? If so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP (8) Relief
6. During the course of proceedings the plaintiff expired and an application under Order 22 Rule 3 was moved on behalf of Smt. Neelam Puri, Sh. Sanjay Puri and Sh. Ajay Puri (the wife and sons of Late Sh. Kamal Puri, the pre deceased son of the plaintiff) on the basis of Will dated 17.09.2004 of the plaintiff. The application was dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2009. However, afterwards in CM (M) Nos. 815/2009, 818/2009, and 870/2009 vide order dated 05.09.2011, the said order dated 01.05.2009 was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Smt. Neelam Puri, Sh. Ajay Puri and Sh. Sanjay Puri were substituted as Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff. Thereafter, during the course of proceedings Smt. Neelam Puri also expired and Sh. Ajay Puri and Sh. Sanjay Puri were substituted as her LRs vide order dated 15.02.2016. Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 6 of 28
7. Thereafter, written statement was amended by the defendant. The defendant additionally contended that there is no testament executed by the plaintiff in respect of the portion of the suit property which is in possession of the defendant and therefore, the defendant being the real son of the plaintiff would inherit the said portion in his possession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 along with other legal heirs of the plaintiff. The defendant therefore contended that after the death of the plaintiff he has become the co-owner of the portion of the suit property in his occupation and accordingly, a suit for recovery of damages/ mesne profits would not maintainable and only a suit for partition can be filed by the other co-owners. The defendant therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
8. The LRs of the plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant and denied the averments made by the defendant and simultaneously reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint. Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 7 of 28
9. In order to prove his case the plaintiff while he was alive examined himself as PW-1 and deposed on the lines of the plaint. He relied upon the following documents:- copy of sale deed which is Ex. PW1/1; site plan which is Ex. PW1/2; copies of complaints which are Mark X (colly) and copy of plaint in the suit titled as Sh. Rajender Nath Puri v. Vijay Kumar Puri & another which is Mark Y.
10. As against this the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and deposed on the lines of the written statement. He relied upon the following documents:- copy of death certificate of his father which is Ex. DW1/1; copy of letter dated 18.04.1990 of the Income Tax department and its reply dated 28.05.1990 which are Mark A and B.
11. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have given due consideration to their rival contentions and carefully perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Suit No.18607 /2016
Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 8 of 28 Issues Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 (1) Whether the suit bad for want of cause of action ? OPD (2) Whether the suit is bad for suspension of material fact? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of mesne profits ? If so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest ? If so, at what rate and for which period ?
OPP
12. PW 1 has deposed that he is the sole owner of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed 07.01.1959. Copy of sale deed is Ex. PW1/1. The defendant has not disputed the sale deed. However the defendant has only stated that the suit property was purchased out of the funds derived from ancestral property and the funds Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 9 of 28 provided by the mother of the defendant. The defendant has therefore contended that the suit property is HUF property and he has a share therein.
13. The law on the point is well settled. There is no presumption that a particular property is joint family property. It is also well settled that the onus to prove that a particular property is joint family property lies on the person who asserts so. Either it is to be proved that the property in question has been directly purchased from joint family funds/ income from joint family business or that the HUF possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value formed the nucleus for acquisition of the property in question.
14. In the judgment tiled as Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh reported as AIR 1969 SUPREME COURT 1076 it was held:
Suit No.18607 /2016
Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 10 of 28 "......The law on this aspect of the case is well settled. Of course there is no presumption that a Hindu family merely because it is joint, possesses any joint property. The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property, is, therefore, in the first instance upon the person who claims it as coparcenery property. But if the possession of a nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or proved, any acquisition made by a member of the joint family is presume to be joint family property. This is however subject to the limitation that the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in question could have been acquired. It is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is shown, that the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self- acquisition to affirmatively make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate...."
15. In the judgment titled as Dr. Gurmukh Ram Madan Vs. Bhagwan Das Madan reported as AIR 1998 SC 2776 it was held:
Suit No.18607 /2016
Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 11 of 28 "......6.The contentions put forth before us are identical to those which are urged in the trial court and the High Court. There is no material to show that the property was joint or the family possessed joint funds. There was no nucleus to augment or add by way of accretion to the same. There is no material to show that the appellant had contributed any sums of money in the purchase of the house or any contribution thereof. Evidence on record out weight the proof sought to be placed by the appellant in this regard. Firstly, the title deed stood in the name of respondent alone. Respondent placed material before the Court that he had purchased the building material at different stages to raise the construction. He was in possession of the house exclusively right from the date of the construction. The appellant if he had given any money to the respondent could have been placed some evidence on record in support of the same. There is nothing forthcoming either in the shape of a documentary evidence or oral evidence except his own self-serving statements which are self- contradictory. Assertions and acclamations will not produce Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 12 of 28 a strong case. The tearful arguments of the appellant had not appealed to us in the absence of even a (sic) of evidence....".
16. Adverting to the facts of the present case the defendant has not led any cogent, viable and independent evidence to show that the suit property was purchased out of any ancestral funds. The existence of any ancestral property which could serve as a nucleus for acquisition of the suit property has not been clearly proved. Certain suggestions/ questions were put to PW 1 during his cross examination regarding certain properties, which are alleged to be ancestral properties however how such existing properties were ancestral properties has not been proved nor any documents in this respect have been produced. It has also not been proved that the alleged properties were sold prior to purchase of the suit property. PW 1 reiterated in his cross examination that he was not having any ancestral properties. There is nothing in the cross examination of PW 1 which could persuade this court Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 13 of 28 to disbelieve his testimony.
17. Further no cogent, viable and independent evidence has been adduced by the defendant to establish that he had contributed any funds for the acquisition or construction of the suit property. DW1 has admitted that the suit property was purchased in the year 1959 and he was born in the year 1958. DW1 has relied upon a letter dated 18.04.1990 of the Income Tax Department and reply dated 28.05.1990 to the same to contend that the suit property is HUF property. However, the said letter and reply have only been marked and not exhibited and thus they have not been duly proved and cannot be taken into account. DW1 has further deposed in regarding the existence of Shri Rajender Nath Puri and Sons HUF. However, he did not prove any document to this effect. The sale deed was registered in the individual name of the plaintiff. The defendant has also not led any cogent, viable and independent evidence to show that the mother of the defendant had contributed towards the purchase of the suit Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 14 of 28 property. Even if she did voluntarily help her husband financially or otherwise the same would not convert the suit property into HUF property.
18. Accordingly, the defendant has failed to establish that the suit property is HUF property. The result is that the suit property is to be treated as the self acquired property of the plaintiff and therefore the defendant was a mere licensee of the plaintiff in the suit property.
19. The plaintiff has categorically deposed that he had terminated the license of the plaintiff vide legal notice dated 06.02.2004. However the legal notice and service of the legal notice has not been proved in the present suit. However, the filing of the suit no. 18595/16 titled as Sh. Rajender Nath Puri v. Vijay Kumar Puri & another for mandatory injunction directing the defendant and his brother to vacate the suit property amounts to termination of license. Copy of the plaint in the said suit is Mark Y. Therefore the license of the defendant stood terminated Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 15 of 28 with effect from 21.05.2004 i.e. the date of institution of the previous suit for mandatory injunction. The status of the defendant in the suit property after termination of license stands reduced to that of unauthorized occupant and therefore he is liable to pay damages/ mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit premises.
20. During the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff expired. The plaintiff left behind a will dated 17.09.2004. The will in question is a registered Will. It has further been stated that probate in respect of the Will has been ordered to be granted in terms of the judgment dated 29.03.2011 passed by Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Probate case no. 05/09 titled as "Neelam Puri & Ors Vs. State & Ors.". A copy of the certified copy of the judgment has been placed on record. The same has not been disputed. It is further stated that appeal against the said judgment has been dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2018 in FAO No. 338/2011 by the Honble High Court of Delhi. Copy of the said order has been also Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 16 of 28 placed on record. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the probate court has attained finality.
21. In the judgment titled as Rukmani Devi v. Narendra Lal Gupta reported as AIR 1984 SC 1866 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"......It is well-settled that the decision of the probate court is a judgment in rem. The High Court rightly held that till the order granting probate remains in force it is conclusive as to the execution and validity of the will till the grant of probate is revoked. Apart from the fact that a decision of the probate court would be a judgment in rem not only binding on the parties to the probate proceedings but it will be binding on the whole world. Therefore, a solemn duty is cast on the probate court. Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a final judgment or order of a competent court in the exercise of probate jurisdiction is conclusive proof of what is decided therein that is about the genuineness of the will. To be precise, a probate granted by a competent court is conclusive of the validity of Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 17 of 28 such will until it is revoked and no evidence can be admitted to impeach it except in a proceeding taken for revoking the probate........."
22. Thus the judgment dated 29.03.2011 passed by Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Probate case no. 05/09 is conclusive proof of the genuineness of the will dated 17.09.2004 of Late Sh. Rajender Nath Puri and the same is also binding on the parties to the present suit. The said will dated 17.09.2004 has to be treated as the genuine and valid will of the plaintiff and no further proof of the same is required. The suit property therefore devolves as per the stipulations in the Will dated 17.09.2004.
23. A perusal of the will dated 17.09.2004 reveals that it has been mentioned that the defendant no. 1 Shri Vijay Kumar Puri is residing in the rear portion on the ground floor and Shri Shyam Sunder Puri is residing in the in the front first floor portion. It has further been Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 18 of 28 mentioned that on the rear first floor portion the family of Shri Kamal Kumar Puri is residing and in the front portion on the ground floor Shri Rajender Nath Puri was himself residing. Further by virtue of the said Will the plaintiff has bequeathed the portion in possession of the plaintiff i.e. front portion on the ground floor in favour of Shri Ajay Puri and rear portion of the first floor in favour of Shri Sanjay Puri. It is also stated that in the Will that in so far as the portions which are in possession of the defendant and his brother are concerned the plaintiff has not been able to decide as to what he proposes to do with the said portions and as and when the said portions are vacated by the defendant and his brother the plaintiff would take a decision in this respect.
24. Now, the defendant has claimed that in so far as the portions of the suit property which are in occupation of the defendant and his brother are concerned, no bequest has been made in the Will dated 17.09.2004 and therefore, the defendant along with his brother (Sh. Shyam Sunder Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 19 of 28 Puri), Smt. Prabha Chaudhary (daughter of the plaintiff) and LRs of the plaintiff namely Sanjay Puri and Sh. Ajay Puri become the co-owners of the same as the said portions would devolve upon all the legal heirs of the plaintiff by intestate succession. The defendant has contended that therefore he is not liable to pay any damages/ mesne profits after the demise of the plaintiff.
25. However, a comprehensive reading of the Will shows that it has been categorically mentioned on the first page that the plaintiff / testator Shri Rajender Nath Puri has disinherited Shri Shyam Sunder Puri and Shri Vijay Kumar Puri (defendant) from his properties. It is further mentioned that the plaintiff/ testator has already filed a suit for obtaining the possession of the house (suit property) from Shri Vijay Kumar Puri (defendant) and Shri Shyam Sunder Puri and they will not have any concern with the movable and immovable properties of the plaintiff / testator. It is also mentioned that the daughter of the plaintiff namely Smt. Prabha Chaudhari or her family Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 20 of 28 members would also have no concern with the Kamla Nagar property (suit property).
26. Accordingly, the plaintiff / testator has made a categorical assertion in the will that the defendant would have no concern with the suit property and has disinherited the defendant. Once such a stipulation has been made in the Will the same has to be honoured and the same is sufficient to alter the normal rule of succession and divest the defendant of any share in any portion of the suit property. The result is that no portion of the suit property would devolve upon the defendant and Sh. Shyam Sunder Puri and the daughter of the plaintiff. The only other legal heirs of the plaintiff are Shri Ajay Puri and Shri Sanjay Puri and accordingly the portions of the suit property in possession of the defendant and his brother would also devolve upon Shri Ajay Puri and Shri Sanjay Puri only.
27. Once it follows that the LRs of the plaintiff namely Shri Ajay Puri and Shri Sanjay Puri would be the Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 21 of 28 owners of the suit property and the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property the position remains to be the same even after the death of the plaintiff and the LRs of the plaintiff can get the suit filed by the plaintiff decreed in their favour. The Plaintiff had already terminated the license of the defendant and accordingly the defendant is liable to pay damages/ mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property and the LRs of the plaintiff step into the shoes of the plaintiff.
28. In suit no. 18595/16 titled as Sh. Rajender Nath Puri v. Vijay Kumar Puri & another vide judgment dated 27.04.2018 a decree of mandatory injunction has already been passed directing the defendant and his brother to vacate the suit property. The said judgment also operates as res judicata in the present suit.
29. The result is that the possession of the defendant in the suit property was rendered illegal and unauthorized w.e.f. 21.05.2004 i.e. the date of institution of the previous Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 22 of 28 suit for mandatory injunction titled as Sh. Rajender Nath Puri v. Vijay Kumar Puri & another and the present defendant is therefore liable to pay damages/ mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property with effect from 21.05.2004. The result is that the LRs of the plaintiff are entitled to a decree for recovery of damages/ mesne profits with effect from 21.05.2004. The LRs of the plaintiff shall also be entitled to pendente lite and future mesne profits/ damages. The plaintiff had the locus standi to file the present suit and the defendant has failed to prove suppression of any material fact on the part of the plaintiff which dis-entitles him to the relief claimed.
30. In so far as the question of quantum of damages/ mesne profits is concerned no evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to show as to what was the prevailing market rate of rent. His self serving statement that the prevailing rate of rent was Rs. 15000/- per month cannot be taken as proof of this fact.
Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 23 of 28
31. However in Bakshi Sachdev (D) by L.Rs. v. Concord (I), 1993 RLR 563, and in P. S. Bedi v. Project & Equipment Corpn. of India Ltd. reported as AIR 1994 Delhi 255 it was held that the while granting damages and mesne profits judicial notice of the factum of phenomenal rise in rents in Delhi can be taken. In the judgment titled as Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd v. Basant Khatri reported as (2012) 190 DLT 769 it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi: "......In every case for determining mesne profits some amount of honest guesswork is always called in. As long as the guesswork is based within legal parameters, and is supported by relevant evidence, such a conclusion can be adopted by the Courts for determining the mense profits...."
32. The portion in possession of the plaintiff comprises of three rooms, one bathroom, two toilets and one kitchen situated on the ground floor in an upscale locality like Kamla Nagar. The defendant has not vacated the suit property despite termination of license and has Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 24 of 28 enjoyed the same. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in case the plaintiff (through LRs) is awarded mesne profits / damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from 21.05.2004 with a cumulative escalation/ increase of 10% per year till the date of vacation of the suit property.
33. Considering the facts and circumstances and keeping in mind the relationship between the parties and the fact that the defendant was a gratuitous licensee and the fact that cumulative increase/ escalation of 10% per year has been granted on the amount of damages/ mesne profits payable, the prayer for grant of interest is declined.
34. These issues are therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 3 (3) Whether the suit is bad under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 25 of 28
35. The previous suit no. 18595/16 titled as Sh. Rajender Nath Puri v. Vijay Kumar Puri & another was a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant herein and his brother to vacate the suit property. The present suit is a suit for recovery of damages/ mesne profits. The cause of action for the both the suits is not the same. The question of unauthorized possession would arise in both the suits but this suit would additionally involve the question of damges/ mesne profits which is not involved in the previous suit. Since the causes of action is both the suits is not the same the present suit cannot be said to barred in terms of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This issue is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 5 (5) Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 CPC ? OPD
36. The trial of the present suit has already been Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 26 of 28 completed. Section 10 CPC only bars the trial of the suit. Moreover the previous suit no. 18595/16 titled as Sh. Rajender Nath Puri v. Vijay Kumar Puri & another for mandatory injunction has already been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the present suit cannot be stayed in terms of section 10 CPC. This issue is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. RELIEF
37. A decree for recovery of damages/ mesne profits is passed in favour of the plaintiff (through LRs) and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay to the LRs of the plaintiff damages / mesne profits @ Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from 21.05.2004 with a further cumulative increase/ escalation of 10% every year till the date of vacation of the suit property/ handing over the vacant possession of the portion of the suit property in possession of the defendant to the LRs of the plaintiff.
38. The suit is therefore decreed in favour of the Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 27 of 28 plaintiff (through LRs) and against the defendant in the aforesaid terms. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff (through LRs) and against the defendants. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The decree qua pendente lite damages/ mesne profits shall not be executed unless balance court fees on the damages/ mesne profits as on the date of decree is paid. File be consigned to record room thereafter.
Digitally signed bySAURABH
SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA
KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2018.05.01
16:34:58 +0530
Announced in the open (Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha)
Court on 28.04.2018. Additional District Judge-11 Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit No.18607 /2016 Rajender Nath Puri Vs Vijay Kumar Puri Page No. 28 of 28