Delhi District Court
Shri Badruddin vs Smt. Rashida Bano on 31 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE CENTRAL-09, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS N0. 142/10.
UID No. 02401C1107152005.
Shri Badruddin
S/o. Shri Mohd. Saddiq
R/o. B-220, Main Road
Savitri Nagar, New Delhi-17
........... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Rashida Bano
W/o. Late Shri Mohd. Yunis
R/o. D-235, Savitri Nagar
New Delhi-110 017
2. Shri Mumtiaz
3. Shri Rahis
Both the Defendants No. 2 & 3
C/o. Lovely Hair Cutting Saloon
At 220-B, Main Road, Savitri Nagar
Village Sheikh Sarai
New Delhi
......... Defendants
Date of institution of suit : 02.12.2005
Date of reserving for judgment : 17.10.2013.
Date of judgment : 31.10.2013.
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit for possession, damages and injunction filed by the plaintiff.
2. Brief facts of the case are :
CS No. 142/10Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 1
a) Smt. Sarla, w/o plaintiff was absolute owner and in actual
physical possession of property bearing No.B-220, measuring 168 square yards in Khasra No.548/135 min, situated at Savitri Nagar in abadi of village of Sheikh Sarai, Delhi. Smt. Sarla got the property (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") from her father.
b) Smt. Sarla sold the suit property to Shri Sanjay Soneja, S/o Dr. K.L. Soneja by virtue of a sale deed dated 11-11-94 duly registered with the office of SR-III, Delhi as document No.8215, Additional Book No.I, Vol. No.8479, pages 37-43 for a consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-.
c) After purchase of the said property by Shri Sanjay and the plaintiff it was rebuilt by them about one and a half years and was completed in the last week of May, 1996 which is consisting of basement (lower ground floor) and three storeys. It is clarified that the front portion of basement (ground floor) which consists of two shops has been raised to the ground/road level wherein the said shops are being run under the names and styles of "Kulson Collections" and "Lovely Hair Cutting Saloon"
d) By mutual arrangement, settlement and understanding the plaintiff became the lawful owner of basement (lower ground floor) and top floor of the suit property and came in actual physical possession thereof. A shop in the property owned by plaintiff hereinafter referred to as "suit shop".
e) The suit shop was given by plaintiff to husband of defendant no.1 on licence for earning his livelihood on humanitarian gound on 01-06-96 for five years against lump sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as licence fee for use of the same as he (Mohd. Yunis) was personally CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 2 known to the plaintiff and both were in very good and friendly terms.
f) After expiry of licence of the suit shop on 30-05-01, plaintiff requested husband of defendant no.1 to vacate the same, but unfortunately husband of defendant no.1 fell ill and showed his inability to do the needful. It was further requested to plaintiff to give some more time to vacate the suit shop and promised to pay Rs.50,000/- as licence fee for use and possession of the suit shop for further two years which was accepted by the plaintiff in the circumstances on compassionate grounds. However, health of husband of defendant no.1 deteriorated day by day and he remained under treatment for about two years prior to his death on 26-06-03. Consequently, he was unable to pay the agreed licence fee of Rs.50,000/- for the next two years starting from 01-06-01. After expiry of further two years on 30-05-03, plaintiff requested husband of defendant no.1 to vacate the suit shop and pay licence fee of Rs.50,000/-. Husband of defendant no.1 agreed to vacate the shop but showed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- as considerable amount. Shri Mohd. Yunis also expired on 26-06-03. Thereafter, defendant no.1 requested plaintiff to extend the licence fee of the suit shop for another two years subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as she was unable to support and maintain herself and her family of five children (four daughters and one son). Plaintiff took pity on her and permitted her to continue to use the suit shop for earning her livelihood for further two years under the prevailing circumstances.
g) Another two years of licence for the shop granted to defendant no.1 expired on 30-05-05 upon which plaintiff demanded CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 3 possession of the shop and the arrears of licence fee but defendant no.1 refused to vacate the shop and to pay the licence fee.
h) Due to dishonest act, intention and attitude of defendant no.1 plaintiff has been suffering loss and damages of Rs.10,000/- per month on account of unauthorized possession, use and enjoyment of the shop by defendant no.1 and plaintiff is bound to suffer in future unless and until vacant and peaceful possession of suit shop is handed over to him. Possession of defendant no.1 after 01-06-05 over the suit shop is illegal and unauthorized without consent and permission of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 has illegally and unauthorizedly sub let the suit shop to defendants no.2 and 3 who are running a barber shop under the name and style of "Lovely Hair Cutting Saloon" at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- which fact was also deliberately concealed by defendant no.1 in a suit for injunction, filed by her with sole motive to grab the suit shop and deprive the plaintiff of his lawful rights by illegal and fraudulent means by filing a forged and bogus agreement dated 20-08-93.
i) On 27-11-05, defendant no.1 along with some third party came to the suit shop for the purposes of striking a deal which has been learnt by the plaintiff. After coming to know this fact of defendant no.1, requested her not to enter into any kind of deal with regard to suit shop. Defendant no.1 in collusion with defendant no.3 is motivated to illegally sell, transfer, alienate, part with possession of the suit shop and create third party interest. Hence the present suit.
3. Written statement of the defendants filed wherein it is objected that plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The sale CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 4 deed dated 11-11-94 executed by wife of plaintiff does not confer any right, title or interest upon plaintiff as the vendor. Smt. Sarla was not the owner of the suit property as she had no absolute disposable right upon the same. All the legal heirs of deceased Shri Yunish Qureshi are necessary parties to the suit. Another objection taken is that the suit is barred by time. Rest of the contents of the plaint are denied except existence of suit property in which "Lovely Hair Cutting Saloon" is being run. It is further stated that vide agreement executed in 1993 between plaintiff and husband of defendant no.1, husband of defendant No.1 paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff and took possession of the suit shop for the period of six years. As per agreement, it was stated that after expiry of six years husband of defendant no.1 returned Rs.1,50,000/- to plaintiff and handed over the possession. Husband of defendant no.1 died on 26-06-03 and after his death all his legal heirs have inherited all his rights and liabilities as they have interest in the suit property.
4. Replication to the written statement was filed wherein it is stated that defendants have no right, title or interest of any kind in the suit shop. It is further objected that defendant has filed a false and frivolous affidavit. Rest of the contents of plaint are reiterated and affirmed.
5. My ld predecessor by order dated 10/04/2007 framed following issues :
"1. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit in his own name? OPD
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 5 parties? OPD
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit shop?
OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in para 20(b) of the suit?OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of licence fee of Rs.1,50,000/- from defendant No.1?OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs.1,00,000/-
on account of mental suffering, torture and harassment from defendant No.1? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to further damages @ Rs.
10,000/- per month from both the defendants, jointly and severally, for unauthorized use and possession of the suit shop? OPP
10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate and from when? OPP
11. Relief."
6. To prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.P1. Plaintiff has further relied upon documents Ex.PW1/1 to PW1/7 which were objected by the defendant due to mode of proof and admissibility. Plaintiff further relied upon document Ex.PW1/7A. PW1 was cross-examined by the counsel of defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff examined Shri Sanjay Suneja as PW2. PW2 was also cross-examined by learned counsel for defendant. Thereafter, PE was closed and in defence defendant No.1 examined herself as DW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. She was cross-examined by learned counsel for plaintiff. Defendant No.1 further examined Shri Taj Mohd. As DW2 who tendered his affidavit Ex.DW2/A who was also cross-examined by learned counsel for plaintiff.
CS No. 142/10Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 6 Thereafter, by separate statement learned counsel for defendant closed DE.
7. I have gone through the entire records of the case, pleadings of parties, evidence led by the parties and documents proved by the parties during the trial. I have also heard Sh. S. S. Panwar, ld counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. S. C. Jha, ld counsel for the defendant. My issuewise findings are :
8. Issues No. 2, 3 and 5.
Issue No. 2 : Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit in his own name ? OPD.
Issue No. 3 : Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD.
Issue No. 5 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit shop? OPP.
I am going to dispose of these issues by common findings as facts pertaining to these issues are connected to each other. Onus to prove issues no. 2 and 3 is upon the defendant whereas, onus to prove issue no. 5 is upon the defendant. Ex. P1 is similar to the averments made in the plaint. During cross-examination, PW1 stated that he has six sisters in law (saali) and all are alive. He has further stated that his mother in law named Nazreen is alive. It is further stated that suit property was given to his wife by her father. The entire property was given by him in his life time. It was given orally. No document in this regard was executed by him in favour of his wife. This court observes that it is not stated by PW1 what was the nature of transfer by father of his wife to his wife of the suit property. Ex. PW1/1 which is sale deed executed by Smt. Sarla, wife of the plaintiff executed on 11/11/1994 is perused. This sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff as well as CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 7 Sh. Sanjay Suneja. In the entire sale deed, it is not stated how Smt. Sarla became owner of the property. It is stated that she is absolute owner of the suit property. But it is not disclosed in Ex. PW1/1 how the title flows in favour of Smt. Sarla. It is not the case of the plaintiff that father of Smt. Sarla either executed a Will in her favour or the property was gifted by father of Smt. Sarla in view of Smt. Sarla. In case it was neither a Will nor gift then the title must have to be flown in favour of Smt. Sarla through the personal laws of succession pertaining to Smt. Sarla. In those circumstances, her other six sisters as well as her mother would also be entitled for the share in the property. In those circumstances, six sisters of Smt. Sarla and her mother were also having equal rights qua the entire property and the sale deed could have been executed by them jointly. But this sale deed has been executed by Smt. Sarla in favour of her husband as well as Sh. Sanjay Suneja.
9. It is settled law that if a suit is filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title then burden is upon the plaintiff to establish the title in his favour. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 of Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 737 held :
"13. The suit is for recovery of possession on the strength of title. Obviously, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that title. No doubt in appreciating the case of title set up by the plaintiff, the court is also entitled to consider the rival title set up by the defendants. But he weakness of the defence or the failure of the defendants to establish the title set up by them, would not enable the plaintiff to a decree. There cannot be any demur to these propositions."
In this case, the plaintiff except the sale deed has not filed any document regarding his title. The sale deed has been executed by his wife who is having six sisters and also her mother. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property was transferred by her father in favour of Smt. CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 8 Sarla but at the sake of repetition the court again observed that no document regarding the transfer of title by father in law of the plaintiff in favour of his wife is brought on the record. Even it is not brought on the record that father in law of the plaintiff was owner of the suit property. No such document has been brought on the record. Here I rely upon Rameshwar Dass Vs.Hakim Javed in RFA No. 451/2001, decided on 02/01/2012 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 6 :
"6. I completely agree with the conclusions of the trial Court and would not seek to repeat the same, inasmuch as I have already reproduced the substance of findings above. Suffice it to stated that appellant, being the plaintiff in the suit, the onus of proof was upon him to show that he was the owner of the suit property and which he miserably failed to prove inasmuch as the entire chain of title documents i.e. from the original owner -Sh. Lachcho Ram to Sh. Nabbu Singh to Smt. Jarreefan and then to Sh. Shaukeen from whom the appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property, were not filed before the trial Court......"
Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Than Singh Vs. Ram Pal in CS (OS) No. 1964/1996, decided on 10/03/2010 held that the true owner has to show that he was dispossessed, less than period of 12 years, he can recover the property. In that case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon Nair Service Society Vs.K. C. Alexander AIR 1968 SC 1165. Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court earlier in Debi Singh Vs. Bhim Singh and others AIR 1971 Delhi 316 (V. 58 C 64) held that in order to succeed, the plaintiff has to show that he is entitled to get possession and he has a better claim against the defendant. But in this case, neither the title of the plaintiff is proved as he is only holding a sale deed executed by his wife Smt. Sarla in his favour, in whose favour no document is there but claims that she got this property from her father. However, title of the father of Smt. Sarla CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 9 has not been proved in any manner.
10. In the entire sale deed i.e. Ex. PW1/1, it is not stated therein that how the property has to be divided between the plaintiff and Sh. Sanjay Suneja. It is not the case of the plaintiff that Sh. Sanjay Suneja is related in any manner to the plaintiff. Moreover, it is also stated to Sh. Sanjay Suneja as well as the plaintiff that there was no written partition between Sh. Sanjay Suneja and the plaintiff. It is stated that there was a collaboration agreement. He could not produce that collaboration agreement as that is a very old document. Again, this court is of the view that the collaboration agreement must not be older than the sale deed i.e. Ex. PW1/1 itself. In the entire sale deed, nothing has been stated about six sisters and mother of Smt. Sarla. It is also not stated why the mention of previous title of father of Smt. Sarla in the sale deed was mentioned. It appears that the plaintiff to deprive the shares of sisters and mother of Smt. Sarla has entered into a fictitious transaction with his wife Smt. Sarla and he also joined them with him Sh. Sanjay Suneja. In cross-examination, it is stated by Sh. Sanjay Suneja that there is a collaboration agreement. This court as per evidence led, comes to the conclusion that in fact there was a transaction of collaboration between the plaintiff and Sh. Sanjay Suneja. But to give different colour to the transaction, a sale deed was got executed by Smt. Sarla in favour of the plaintiff as well as Sh. Sanjay Suneja. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as it is not only the plaintiff but sisters of his wife as well as mother are also necessary parties as it is admitted case of PW1 in his cross- examination that his father did not leave behind any Will. A suggestion was given during cross-examination of PW1 that the entire property was inherited by widow of Sh. Rasool Baksh and all his daughters CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 10 including wife of the plaintiff and the suggestion was denied. But the basis of denial of the suggestion has neither been described in Ex. P1 or anywhere. A suggestion was further given that his wife has no right to sell the entire property to PW1 and Sh. Sanjay Soneja and the said suggestion is denied. He has further stated that he had got basement and top floor and middle two floors has gone to the share of Sh. Sanjay Suneja. However, no such agreement regarding such partition has been brought on the record. Again it appears that the plaintiff has only tried to make a fictitious transaction to deprive the share of sisters and mother of his wife. Thus, this suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as not only sisters and mother of the wife of the plaintiff should have been joined as a necessary parties to the case but as per the own averments of the plaintiff, Sh. Sanjay Soneja is having equal share in the suit property as per sale deed Ex. PW1/1. Therefore, he should also be joined as a plaintiff in the present suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that no formal partition has taken place between the plaintiff and Sh. Sanjay Suneja. Therefore, issue no. 3 is answered against the plaintiff.
11. Regarding issue no.2 as this court has already observed that wife of the plaintiff was having no right to sell the suit property to PW-1 and Sh. Sanjay Suneja and the plaintiff has entered into a fictitious transaction to deprive the shares of sister and mother of his wife therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit in his own name as wife of the plaintiff namely Smt. Sarla could have filed the present suit. Accordingly issue no.5 is also disposed of against the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the suit shop. Moreover, even if this court is going to believe upon the plaintiff then also it is the case of the plaintiff that the shop jointly owned by the plaintiff and Sh. Sanjay Suneja by virtue of sale deed dated CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 11 11.11.1993. No partition or collaboration agreement filed by the plaintiff. Sh. Sanjay Suneja appeared as PW-2 in this court and stated that there was no written partition between him and the plaintiff. He has stated that there was a collaboration agreement. If PW2 Sh. Sanjay Suneja is to be believed upon then also that collaboration agreement regarding immovable property should have been registered but he has stated that he was not in a position to produce that collaboration agreement and a suggestion was given that there was no collaboration agreement. PW-2 denied the suggestion. If there was any collaboration agreement then definitely the same should have been registered and that collaboration agreement should have been brought before this court. Even if that document was lost then concerned witness from the Sub-Registrar office could have been summoned and the same could have been proved in accordance with the law. PW-2 further stated that the suit property was divided between plaintiff and PW-2 as per the collaboration agreement but the said collaboration agreement has not been brought before the court. He has further stated that his portion in Ex.PW1/1 has not been stated. He has also stated that in Ex.PW1/1 neither his portion nor the portion of the plaintiff is stated. Therefore, in my considered opinion the plaintiff is concealing facts from this court. A suggestion was given by the plaintiff to DW1 that the plaintiff in collaboration with Sh. Sanjay Suneja rebuilt the suit property and the said suggestion is admitted by DW2 but such a fact of collaboration has not been stated by the plaintiff in his plaint. The plaint is silent about any collaboration agreement. It appears that the plaintiff with an intention to cover up the evidence given by PW2 made such a suggestion during cross examination to DW1. During cross examination of DW1 she has stated that one builder namely Sh. Sanjeev Saluja contacted her husband in CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 12 1994 to build the suit shop which was built by him within one or two months. She has further stated that the suit shop was already in her possession since 1993. Moreover, no license deed or receipt of payment brought by the plaintiff to prove that he had given the shop on license on 01.01.1996 to the husband of DW1. In para 5 of Ex.P-1 i.e. affidavit, it is stated that Sh. Mohd. Yunis paid a sum of Rupees One Lac in lieu of the use of the shop and he accepted that amount. Neither any receipt nor any evidence of Rs.1 Lac paid to him by Mohd. Yunis, brought on the record. This court is of the considered opinion that Rs. 1 Lac in the year 1996 was not a small amount though it is not small even today. If a person had paid Rs.1 lac to the plaintiff then definitely such a big amount must have been paid only through cheque or such like transaction. Even if the cash amount was made then definitely the said amount must have been evidenced by any bank entry or similar document. No such evidence has been brought on the record. Here, I rely upon Rakesh Basra Vs. Satsagar Gupta IA No. 13117 of 2011 in CS (OS) No. 1936 of 2008, decided on 13/12/2011, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held in para 13:
"13. It is settled legal proposition that in a suit for the relief of possession, the plaintiff is only required to prove that the defendant was inducted in the property by him and he is entitled to receive back the possession. In the present case, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not denied by the defendant."
In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was allowed to enter into the suit property as a licencee on 0106/96 for five years whereas the claim of the defendant is that she is a tenant at the suit property vide agreement executed in 1993 between the plaintiff and husband of defendant no. 1. This court is of the considered opinion that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants are able to prove their respective contention but if the plaintiff has to succeed then the plaintiff CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 13 has to explain all the circumstances under which the defendant is allowed to enter into the suit property. This court is of the considered opinion that nothing as such has been established by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was allowed for earning his livelihood for five years against lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, no person except the plaintiff witnessed the said transaction has been brought before this court. No such document has been brought before the court. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not able to prove the entry of the defendant as a licencee in the year 1996. The real transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant qua the suit property has not been proved by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, this court is not going to believe upon the plaintiff and therefore issue no.5 is being answered against the plaintiff.
12. Issue No.6.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in para 20(b) of the suit ? OPP. Onus to prove issues no.6 is upon the plaintiff. However during disposal of issue no. 2, 3 and 5 court already observed that plaintiff has no locus-standi to file present suit. Therefore, issue no.6 is also answered against the plaintiff.
13. Issue No.7, 8 and 9Issue No. 7 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of licence fee of Rs.1,50,000/- from defendant No. 1 ? OPP.
Issue No. 8 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs.
1,00,000/- on account of mental suffering, torture and harassment from defendant no.1 ? OPP.
Issue No. 9 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to further damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month from both the defendants, jointly and severally, for unauthorized use and CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 14 possession of the suit shop ? OPP.
I am going to dispose of these issues by common findings as facts pertaining to these issues are connected to each other. Onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. Similar finding is also given regarding issues no. 7, 8 and 9 as the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, therefore, these issues are also answered against the plaintiff.
14. Issue no. 10.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate and from when ? OPP.
Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Since the court has already observed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any amount therefore there is no question of interest and accordingly, this issue is also answered against the plaintiff.
15. Issue no. 4.
Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD.
Onus to prove issue no.4 is upon the defendant. It is the case of DW1 that in para 10 of Ex.DW1/A it is stated that as per agreement executed in August 1993, husband of DW1 took possession of the suit shop for a period of six years therefore the entry of the defendant on the suit property is not hostile but with the consent of the plaintiff and this court has already observed that the plaintiff is at the suit property with the consent of his wife Smt. Sarla who is daughter of late Sh. Rasul Baksh. Therefore the possession and occupation of the plaintiff at the suit property is not hostile but with the consent of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is at the suit property in accordance with the agreement executed according to DW1 in the year 1993 and till date CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 15 she has not claimed that her possession is hostile therefore the suit is well within the limitation and this issue is answered against the defendant.
16. Issue no. 1.
Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD.
Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. However during evidence defendant has not pressed this issue. No evidence has been led to prove this issue and accordingly, this issue is answered against the defendant.
17. Issue No. 11.
Relief.
In view of the observations made herein-above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. There is no order of cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Jitendra Kumar Mishra) court on 31.10.2013. Additional District Judge-09 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi CS No. 142/10 Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 16 CS No. 142/10 31/10/2013 (at 5:15 pm) Present : None.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. There is no order of cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)
Additional District Judge-09
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi/31.10.2013
CS No. 142/10
Badruddin Vs. Smt. Rashida Bano Page 17