Delhi District Court
Sh. Rama Nand Bharadwaj vs M/S Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal on 21 May, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI
(FAST TRACK COURT)
Suit No.216/06/03
Sh. Rama Nand Bharadwaj,
S/o Sh. Ram Chandra,
R/o House no.498, Haveli Haider Quli,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. .....Plaintiff.
Versus
1.M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal, Municipal No.6646, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006.
2. Sh. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal, R/o D-23, Gitanjali Enclave, New Delhi-110017.
3. Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta, S/o Late Sh. Kanshi Nath, Flat No.702, Sukh Sagar Apartment, Patpar Ganj, Delhi. .....Defendants.
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.
1. The above named plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession and mesne profits against the aforementioned defendants interalia making the following prayers:-
(i).a decree for vacant and peaceful possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants may be passed directing the defendants to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises bearing Municipal No.6657 (Ground Floor) situated as Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 (shown in red in the plan) to the plaintiff;
(ii).a decree for mesne profits for Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) for use and occupation of the premises in dispute upto 15th January, 2003 @ Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month and for future mesne profits after enquiry under Order XV Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be also passed till the recovery of the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff; and
(iii).Cost of the suit is also demanded by the plaintiff.
2. As per plaint, the plaintiff is the owner in respect of property bearing Municipal No.6657 situated at Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 shown red in the plan. The defendants no.1 to 3 have illegally and unauthorizedly trespassed in the said property and are thus illegally occupying without any authority the said property bearing Municipal No.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 as shown red in the plan. The defendants are in unlawful occupation of the same. They are neither tenants nor allottees in any part of the said property and thus have got no rights whatsoever to continue to occupy the same. During the proceedings for issuing notice under Rule 11(E) of the Evacuee Interest Separation Rules in the Court of Mrs. Neena Bansal Krishna, Competent Authority, Delhi, the defendants preferred an application dated 08.07.2002 and thus the plaintiff after objections to the said application, served notice dated 18.09.2002 wherein the defendants were required to immediately vacate and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the property bearing Municipal No.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 to the plaintiff. The said notice was sent under registered A.D. cover and also under Postal Certificate and was duly served on the defendants. The defendants are neither the tenants nor licencees of the plaintiff. There has been no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the premises in dispute. The defendants have neither paid nor the plaintiff has ever received any rent whatsoever in respect of the premises in dispute. The defendants have illegally trespassed in the said premises which was disclosed to the plaintiff only in the proceedings before the Ld. Competent Authority. The premises in dispute consists of ground floor only bearing Municipal No.6657, as shown red in the plan which is located in the market, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 can easily fetch at least Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month for its use and occupation. The plaintiff is thus deprived of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month because of illegal and unauthorized occupation of the said premises by the defendants. The defendants are thus liable to pay to the plaintiff @ Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month for its unlawful use and occupation for a period of 3 years upto 15th January, 2003 (upto the date of filing of the suit) amounting to Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) being the legally recoverable damages for 3 years. The defendants are further liable to pay at the market rate mesne profits/damages for use and occupation of the said premises from the date of filing of the present suit till the date of decision of the suit and future damages for its use and occupation till the date of handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the plaintiff.
The cause of action for the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants has arisen on the date and at the time when the defendants made known to have trespassed and about their illegal occupation in the said premises shown in red in the plan. It further arose when the notice dated 18.09.2002 was sent and served on the defendants. The unauthorized occupation and illegal possession of the defendants is still continuing and therefore, the cause of action is still continuing since then. This court has jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary to try and entertain the present suit. The suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.
3. Defendants contested the suit by filing their joint Written Statement in which they took several preliminary objections like that plaintiff has no right, title or interest of any nature in the suit property and is not entitled for any relief; the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands; the suit of the plaintiff is time barred and the same is not maintainable; the property in question is in absolute, open, uninterrupted and continues lawful occupation and physical possession of the defendants since the year 1949-50. The defendants are the owners of the property in question by way of adverse possession. The suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. No cause of action has been arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants to file the present suit. Even otherwise, no permission under the Slums Act has been obtained by the plaintiff before filing the present suit.
The true and correct facts are that the property in question bearing no.VI/3135 (old)/6657 (new), Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi- 110006 was originally owned by one Smt. Saraswati Devi W/o Seth Laxmi Narayan. The said Smt. Saraswati Devi handed over the physical vacant possession of the property in question (Ground Floor) to the defendant no.1 i.e. the firm in the year 1949-50 and the defendant no.1 (earlier represented by the fathers of the defendant no.2 & 3 being the partners) since the year 1949-50 is in absolute, open, uninterrupted and continuous lawful occupation and physical possession of the same and enjoying it as the absolute and exclusive owner by way of adverse possession. In the month of July, 2002, the defendants came to know that some proceedings in respect of the property in question were pending in the court of Smt. Neena Bansal Krishna, Competent Authority, Delhi. After the inquiry and inspection of the concerned records made available to the defendants, it was realized that the plaintiff has manipulated and fabricated the records of the property in question with an ulterior motive to usurp the same, owned by the defendants. The manipulation of the records and concealment of the facts by the plaintiff is clear from the following facts apart from other instances:-
(i).The plaintiff has allegedly purchased the part of property bearing Municipal No.VI/3155(old) with new corresponding nos.6661 to 6668 situated at Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi. This property was earlier vested in the Custodian/Ministry of Rehabilitation and was purchased by one Sh. Hakim Mehmood R/o Kibria Manzil, Balli-Maran, Delhi, who later on sold this property in parts to the plaintiff and his brothers namely Sh. Parmanand Bhardwaj and Sh. Mahanand Bhardwaj as per the alleged Sale Deed dated 28.06.1969. The property in question was never part of the above mentioned property bearing no.VI/3155 and was never sold to Sh. Hakim Mehmood by the Custodian not being ''composite property'' within the meaning of Evacuee Interest (Sepration Act) 1950 as evident from Sale Certificate dated 05.06.1969 issued by Sh. B.S. Kinger, Competent Officer, Delhi.
(ii).The property in question bears municipal no.VI/3153(old) with corresponding new number 6657, and the same never and could not be vested in the Custodian/Ministry of Rehabilitation as the same was earlier owned by one Smt. Saraswati Devi as mentioned above and the same is also admitted by the Custodian and also clearly mentioned in the M.C.D. records.
(iii).The plaintiff who is running his business in the name and style of ''M/s Goel's Rice House'' at 6663-64, just adjacent to the defendant's firm at 6646, Khari Baoli, Delhi-6 and having its office/properties etc. just next to the property in question, for last more than 50 years, is very well aware about the occupation and possession of the property in question by the defendants for last more than 50 years and their claim of ownership title in respect of the property in question and at no stage he raised any objection to the same. It is absolutely wrong and denied that he came to know about the possession of the defendants recently.
(iv).The plaintiff alleged to have purchased the property in question vide Sale Deed dated 28.06.1969 by which symbolic possession of the property in question is alleged to have been given to him. Since the date of alleged purchase, the plaintiff never gave any information/notice etc. to the defendants during all these almost 34 years which itself speaks of malafide on its part and the claim, if any, is also barred by limitation at this stage.
(v).On the other hand, the plaintiff, in the proceedings under rule 11-E of the Evacuee Interest (Separation Rules) in the court of Smt. Neena Bansal Krishna, Competent Authority, Delhi, intentionally and knowingly got the notices issued in the name of one Sh. Roop Chand, falsely showing him to be the occupant of the property in question, with the sole object of keeping the defendants ignorant of the said proceedings and to deprive the defendants of their legal rights/claims and to usurp the property in question.
Hence, also mislead the court of the Competent Authority. Even otherwise, Ministry of Rehabilitation/Custodian has not been made a party in the present suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of the necessary party. Moreover, the suit has not been properly verified.
On merits, it is denied that the plaintiff is the owner in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.6657 situated at Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006. The Site Plan of the property in question is wrong and denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest of any nature in the property in question, rather the defendants are the absolute owner and in lawful, open, uninterrupted, continuous physical occupation and peaceful possession of the property in question since 1949-50. It is also denied that the defendant no.1 to 3 have illegally and unauthorizedly trespassed in the said property and are thus illegally occupying without any authority the said property bearing Municipal No.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 as shown red in the plan. The documents i.e. Sale Deed etc. have been obtained by the plaintiff from the concerned authority, by mis-representing, manipulating and fabricating the records and facts. The plaintiff in the proceedings under rule 11-E of the Evacuee Interest (Separation Rules) in the court of Smt. Neena Bansal Krishna, Competent Authority, Delhi, intentionally and knowingly got the notices issued in the name of one Sh. Roop Chand, falsely showing him to be the occupant of the property in question, with the sole object of keeping the defendants ignorant of the said proceedings and to deprive the defendants of their legal rights/claims and to usurp the property in question. The contents of the alleged notice dated 18.09.2002 are absolutely false, bogus and wrong. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest to ask the defendants to vacate the property in question to demand any rent etc. It is also denied that the plaintiff came to know about the occupation of the defendants only in the proceedings before the Ld. Competent Authority, Smt. Neena Bansal Krishna. It is also denied that the property no.6657 (old no.3153) consists of Ground Floor only. The property no.6657 consists of Ground Floor and Ist Floor with right to way from property no.6662, which is also evident from the M.C.D. records. It is also denied that the premises in question can easily fetch at least Rs.10,000/- per month for its use and occupation or that the plaintiff is thus deprived of Rs.10,000/- per month because of illegal and unauthorized occupation of the said premises by the defendants. It is also denied that defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff @ Rs.10,000/- per month or any other amount or that the defendants are liable to pay at the market rate mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation of the said premises for any period. He claimed that on one hand, the plaintiff is claiming to have acquired the knowledge regarding the occupation and possession of the premises in question at the time when an application was filed by the defendants in the court of Ld. Competent Authority, on the other hand, he has also claimed the damages for a period of three years. Arising of any cause of action in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants has been denied.
4. Plaintiff filed replication to the Written Statement of the defendants thereby reaffirming the allegation contained in the plaint and denying those of the Written Statement.
It is specifically stated that the plaintiff has not concealed any material facts from the court. The suit is not barred by limitation in any manner. The defendants are neither the owners of the suit property nor had been in adverse possession of the same to the knowledge of the plaintiff; prior to the knowledge which was disclosed for the first time during the proceedings before the Competent Officer, Delhi. No permission under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act was required before filing the present suit. There has never been any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants are neither tenants nor are licencee in any manner. It is not admitted that the old number of the suit property was VI/3135. It is submitted that the correct old number of the suit property was VI/3155 and was governed by the Evacuee Interest (Sepration) Act 1951 and Rules made thereunder. The Custodian had laid down the information before the then Ld. Competent Officer about the suit property and the separate information was lodged in respect of which due publications were also made in the news paper National Herald and Nav Bharat Times for general public vide order dated 25.03.1983 passed by the then acting Competent Officer, Delhi. In all the proceedings before the custodian and the Ld. Competent Officer, the correct number of the suit property had always been and declared as VI/3155 (old)/6657 (new), Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110 006. It is denied that the suit property bearing no.VI/3155 (old)/6657 (new) was ever owned by any Smt. Saraswati Devi wife of Late Sh. Laxmi Narain. It is also denied that any Smt. Saraswati Devi had ever handed over the physical vacant possession of the suit property as shown red in the plan to the defendant no.1 at any time. The defendant no.1 was neither in possession of the suit property in the year 1949-50 nor thereafter. It is denied that any firm under the name M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal had ever existed in the year 1949-50. Sh. Kanshi Nath and Shyam Lal were two brothers and the defendant no.2 is the son of Late Sh. Shyam Lal, while the defendant no.3 is the son of late Sh. Kanshi Nath. The said two brothers were carrying on their business and were in occupation only of Municipal no.6646, Khari Baoli, Delhi. Neither the defendants no.2 & 3 nor their father or any of the alleged firm had ever been in occupation or possession in respect of the suit property. It is forcefully denied that the defendants are owners by way of adverse possession. It is submitted that the defendants had knowledge of the proceedings from the very beginning and specifically from the period when the Ld. Competent Officer had issued notices at the address of the suit property in March, 2000 and thereafter from time to time. The defendants have also watched the proceedings and have also inspected the judicial file of the Ld. Competent Authority on 12.11.2001 through Sh. R.K. Bansal, Advocate vide Vakalatnama dated 02.11.2001. The plaintiff has neither manipulated nor fabricated any record of the suit property. The suit property is neither owned by the defendants nor the defendants have got any right to remain in occupation of the same. The defendants have intentionally and knowingly forged and manipulated false documents by inserting 6657 in the alleged documents copies of which are filed. The said documents, if any, are related to property no.6646 Khari Baoli, Delhi and/or 6647, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Delhi. None of these documents pertains to the suit property bearing no.3155 (old)/6657 (new). It is submitted that Hakim Mehmood Sayeed Khan son of Hakim Gulam Kibriyan Khan alias Bhurae Mian had purchased the property bearing M. No.3155(old) corresponding to M. No.6661 to 6668, Ward No.6, Khari Baoli, Delhi in an open auction held by the Competent Authority, New Delhi on 24.03.1966 vide Sale Certificate bearing registered document no.51 in Supplementary Book no.1 Volume No.204 at page 83 on 13.06.1969. The suit property bearing M. No.6657, shown red in the plan was not auctioned with M. No.6661 to 6668 and was separately dealt with. Hakim Mehmood Saiyed Khan son of Gulam Kibriyan Khan had in the suit property no. VI/6657 his 8 Annas and 3-¼ Piea share out of one rupee share in the same as his non-evacuee share. Thus Hakim Mehmood Saiyed Khan son of Gulam Kibriyan Khan had sold property bearing M. No.6661, 6663, 6664 Ward No.6, Khari Baoli, Delhi and his 8 Annas 3-¼ Pies non-evacuee share in red in the plan to the plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.06.1969 registered at No.4194 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume No.2206 at pages 15 to 21 on 28.06.1969. The other non-evacuee co-sharers in the suit property bearing M. No.VI/6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi namely: (a). Mst. Sadiqa Begum Widow of Hakim Sharif Ahmad Khan, Abid Zafar, Nasim Safar, Shahid Safar sons of Hakim Shariff Ahmad Khan; (b). Hakim Shabir Ahmad Khan son of Hakim Safar Ahmad Khan; (c). Hakim Shabir Ahmad Khan and Mst. Mehar Jahan Begum, legal heirs on Mst. Bilquis Begum; and (d). Masroor Ahmad Khan son of Hakim Mehmood Ahmad Khan and shares/interests in claims of 4-¼ pies(a); 4-¼ pies(b); 2 pies(c); and 4 pies(d) respectively (Total being 1 Anna 2 ½ pies i.e. 14-½ pies). This total share of 14-½ pies was transferred by all of them to the plaintiff against receipt of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) vide receipt dated 15.11.1985. Thus the plaintiff became owner of 0/9/5-3/4 pies (i.e. 8 Annas 3-1/4 pies plus 1 Anna 2-1/2 pies). The remaining 0/6/6-1/4 pies share of property No.VI/6657 Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi being an evacuee interest vested in the Custodian was transferred by the then Competent Officer under the Evacuee interest (Separation) Act 1951 to the plaintiff (Rama Nand Bharadwaj) for a price of Rs.26,087/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Eighty Seven Only) vide Registered Sale Deed dated 21.03.1986 at no.1250 in Addl. Book No.I, Volume no.4545 at pages 77 to 79 on 25.03.1986. Thus the plaintiff became the owner of the whole of the suit property bearing M. No.VI/6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi as shown red in the plan. The property bearing M. No.6662, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi consisting of first, second and third floor was sold by Hakim Mehmood Sayeed Khan son of Gulam Kibriyan Khan to Shri Parma nand Bhardwaj vide Sale Deed dated 10.07.1969 registered at No.4549 in Additional Book No.I, Volume No.2214 at pages 17 to 22 on 17.07.1969; and the property bearing M. Nos.6665 to 6668 shops at ground floor Khari Baoli, Delhi were sold by Hakim Mehmood Sayeed Khan son of Gulam Kibriyan Khan to Shri Maha Nand Sharma vide Sale Deed dated 18.07.1969 registered at No.4847 in Additional Book No.I, Volume No.2220 at pages 17 to 24 on 28.07.1969. It is not admitted that the suit property was never part of the property bearing No.3155(old). As per above-mentioned facts and details, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property bearing M. No.VI/6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The same was mutated in the name of the plaintiff vide mutation letter dated 29.03.1991 and in respect of which the plaintiff has regularly been paying the property tax to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The suit property did not have VI/3153 as old number. The new M. No. of the suit property is 6657, which consists of Ground Floor only, as shown in the plan. It was never owned by any Smt. Saraswati Devi. It had vested in the custodian having evacuee and non-evacuee shares and was always rightly dealt with according to the provisions of the Evacuee Interest (Sepration) Act 1951. The custodian had never admitted that the suit property No.VI/6657 either belongs or had ever belonged to any Smt. Saraswati Devi. The alleged M.C.D. records or its correctness are not admitted, however, it is submitted that there are no such M.C.D. records as alleged regarding the suit property. The plaintiff is running his business under the name and style of M/s Goel's Rice House at 6661 and 6663 to 6664, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The defendants have been running their business only in Municipal No.6646, Khari Baoli, Delhi; and its stair case leading to first floor bearing No.6647 in Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi. It is not admitted that the plaintiff is having its office/properties etc. just next to the suit property. In between VI/6657 and 6661 Gali Bansi Chawal Wali; there are property no.6658, 6659 and 6660 of others. However, the western wall of VI/6657 touches the portion of the wall of the plaintiff's other property at ground floor. The plaintiff have got the exclusive ownership and title in respect of the suit property. The defendants did not occupy the property in suit at any time within the knowledge of the plaintiff except as detailed herein above; and therefore, the question of raising any objection did not arise. The plaintiff as soon as came to know for the first time during the proceedings for issuing notices under Rule 11E of Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules by the then Competent Officer, Delhi; the plaintiff immediately got served notice dated 18.09.2002 and filed the present suit for possession and mesne profits immediately without any delay. The defendants were neither in possession nor could have any lawful occupation in the suit property. Therefore, the defendants were not entitled for any notice under rule 11-E of the Evacuee interest (Separation) Rules. The custodian had reported that as per their record only Sh. Roop Chand S/o Sh. Babu Lal was a tenant in the suit property bearing no.VI/3155 (old)/6657 (new) @ Rs.90.62/- per month and, therefore, the then Ld. Competent Officer, rightly ordered to issue notice to him under rule 11-E of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules. It was only when report was received by the then Ld. Competent Officer about the death of Sh. Roop Chand and the application dated 08.07.2002 U/o 1 rule 10 r.w. Sec. 151 CPC was preferred by the defendants, the plaintiff came to know for the first time about the alleged illegal occupation of the defendants. It is not admitted that the defendants are in occupation for about 34 years and they were entitled to any notice/information. The notices of the purchase are to be given only to the lawful occupants and allottees. The Ministry of Rehabilitation/Custodian is neither necessary nor the proper party in the present suit, therefore, the suit is not bad due to non-joinder of the Custodian.
5. From the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed:-
(i).Whether the claim of the plaintiff is instituted within prescribed period of limitation? OPP.
(ii).Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the property bearing Municipal No.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi specific shown red in the site plan from the defendant? OPP.
(iii).Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits/damages amounting to Rs.3,60,000/- at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m. for three years till 15.01.2003? OPP.
(iv).Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the damages w.e.f.
filing the suit and future damages from the defendants? If so, at what rate? OPP.
(v).Whether the defendant no.1 is exclusive owner on account of adverse possession in respect of the suit property? OPD.
(vi).Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable without permission of the competent authority under the Slum Act? OPD.
(vii).Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
(viii).Relief.
6. In support of his case plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1. Beside him, plaintiff has also examined Sh. Nagender Shah (UDC, Land & Building Department, Evacuee Cell, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi) as PW-2 and then the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
On the other hand defendant has examined as many as five witnesses in support of his case namely Sh. Y.S. Negi (UDC in Ward-16, Sales Tax Office, ITO, New Delhi), Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta, Sh. Padam Chand Gupta, Sh. Sudesh (Asst. Grade III, BSES, Yammuna Power Ltd., Minto Road, Gandhi Market, New Delhi) and Sh. Rajender Kumar Gupta as DW- 1, DW-2, DW-3, DW-4 and DW-5 respectively.
7. PW-1 Sh. Rama Nand Bhardwaj in his examination-in-chief tendered by way of affidavit has reiterated the contents of plaintiff and has exhibited the following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 : Site Plan.
Ex.PW1/2 : Sale Deed dated 28.06.1969, whereby the
plaintiff purchased the non evacuee share of 9
Annas 5-3/4 pai in property bearing
Municipal No.6657 from Hakim Mehmood
Sahid Khan and other non evacuee co-
sharers.
Ex.PW1/3 : Sale Deed dated 21.03.1986 whereby the
plaintiff purchased the remaining evacuee
share in property bearing no.6657, Khari
Baoli, Delhi from the then Competent Officer.
Ex.PW1/4 : Photocopy of notice dated 18.09.2002.
Ex.PW1/5 : Postal Receipts.
Ex.PW1/6 : A.D. Card duly signed by Sh. Anand Prakash
Gupta.
Ex.PW1/7 : Photocopy of notice dated 18.09.2002.
Ex.PW1/8 : Under Postal Certificate Receipt.
During cross examination he claimed that he is dealing in trade of rice and pulses in the name and style of M/s Goel Rice House, 6664, Khari Baoli since 1950. Previously the said property was on rent but now it is in his ownership as the same has been purchased in 1969 from Hakim Mahmood Sayed Khan. The old number of that property was 3155. He stated that the property which was numbered as 3155 earlier is now new numbered with 6657, 6661, 6662, 6663 & 6664. In the property initially known as 3155, there were tenants. Since he was already in possession in the said property before the said purchase, so after the purchase he retained the possession thereof. He however claimed that the possession of property no.6657 was not with him but the same was sold to him by a registered sale deed. He conceded that he was not tenant in that property and he even does not know in whose possession the portion of property no.6657 was. He not even ascertained as to who was in possession of the property no.6657. He conceded that property no.6657 was divided by a wall from the rest of the property no.6661 to 6664. The property in dispute is not visible from 6661 to 6664. He served the notice upon the occupier of that property after the purchase thereof. The property which was purchased from the custodian, the notice were served upon the tenants in the property through the custodian. He was never been asked to repair or maintain the said shop, therefore, no question of maintenance arisen so far. He could not tell as to whether the electric meter is installed in that shop or not. He claimed that he has ascertained at the time of purchase that the property now known by 6657 was known by no. 3155 at that time from the custodian records. The area of the property no.6657 is 9'X14' on the ground floor. He denied the suggestion that the old number of the property no.6657 was 3153 and Hakim Mahmood Saeed Khan had no concern with the said property and the said property was under the ownership of Smt. Saraswati Devi wife of Laxmi Narayan. Roop Chand is known to him and he had never been his tenant. He denied the suggestion that the defendants are in occupation and possession of the property in dispute since 1949-50. He also denied that neither Hakim Mahmood had nor the plaintiff has any right upon the said property. He has no business dealing with the defendants nor he knows as to whether the defendants are running their business from the shop no.6657. He claimed that the defendants are running their business from 6646. He could not tell the exact cost of the suit. However, he claimed that the shop can fetch the rent Rs.10,000/- per month if it is vacated. There is no first floor in that shop. He has been paying house tax for the shop no.6657. Since the demand has been made by the MCD, so he paid the same separately. He denied the suggestion that separate house tax is paid because municipal number of that shop is separate.
PW-2 Sh. Nagender Shah brought the summoned file 2597 between custodian versus Hakim Sabir Ahmed & others and he also filed the certified copies Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW1/14 and claimed that they are correct according to the originals documents in the said file of the case. It is pertinent to mention here that subsequently vide his order dated 17.09.2003 my Ld. Predecessor de-exhibited the documents Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/14 on raising objections by the defendants that the said documents were filed by the witness on the date of recording of his evidence and it was not filed by the plaintiff on record in accordance with the laws i.e. before the framing of issues. The plaintiff had also not sought any permission from the court for filing the same.
8. DW-1 Sh. Y.S. Negi exhibited the documents (photostate copies) Ex.DW1/1 & Ex.DW1/2 by producing their originals. They are the registration certificate under Delhi Sales Tax Central Secretariat and Central Sales Tax Registration in respect of firm M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Nath. He was shown the photostate copy of form ST III, certificate of registration for a dealer having only one place of business in Delhi state of the aforesaid firm and he also checked it from the original of the same brought by him and noticed the following differences:-
(i).The original bears the endorsement of cancellation with the word cancelled and issued duplicate no.143270 and further original bears the stamp of the Assessing Authority, whereas the round seal does not exist on the photocopy;
(ii).Further the original has been signed by Assessing Authority but the name of the Assessing Officer is not mentioned in the original, whereas the photocopy bears the name of Assessing Officer as M.L. Mohindra, Assessing Authority and;
(iii).Further underneath the notes 1 & 2 the words are typed as attested and below attested is typed the name M.L. Mohindra, Sales Tax Officer bearing the photo impression of his signature whereas that photo impression of his signatures does not exists above the note where the Assessing Authority put signatures in the original;
(iv).Overleaf the original, some writings are there in ink but the said writings are not there overleaf the photocopy.
Thus the photocopy is not the exact copy of the original but since the photocopy bears the substance so it was put under mark DX. During cross examination he claimed that he never dealt with the file during his tenure in the concerned ward except bringing the file in the court. He could not tell as to who was the officer in-charge in the ward in the year 1951. He also could not tell as to when and how the figures in ink 6657 and some initials underneath this figure in original came to occur and by whom it was done and the photocopy impression of the same is there in its photocopy Ex.DW1/2 and circled red. He admitted the suggestion that whenever there is any modification, change, addition, alteration in the original certificate, it is done under order of the officer concern in writing with its full signature and seal. He conceded that the premises no.6657 is not mentioned in the original application form and the photocopy of the same is exhibited as DPX. The photocopy of ST III form is also exhibited as DPX1. He conceded that on the basis of DPX and DPX1, duplicate was issued, photocopy of which is already Ex.DW1/1. He could not tell as to in whose hands, the original of Ex.DW1/1 is written. He admitted that duplicate of Ex.DW1/1 is actually the duplicate of duplicate. He conceded that there is no application in the file brought by him for issuance of registration certificate in respect of premises no.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, New Garodia Market, Khari Baoli, Delhi.
9. DW-2 Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta in his examination in chief tendered by way of affidavit confirmed that the property in question bearing no.VI/3153(old)/6657(new), Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi-6 was originally owned by one Smt. Saraswati Devi Gadodia W/o Seth Laxmi Narayan. The said Smt. Saraswati Devi Gadodia handed over the physical vacant possession of the property in question (Ground Floor) to the defendant no.1 i.e. the firm in the year 1949-50 and since then the defendants are in absolute uninterrupted and continues possession of the same. He also exhibited the documents Ex.DW2/1 to Ex.DW2/9. He has reiterated the contents of the written statement in his examination in chief.
During cross examination he conceded that Smt. Saraswati Devi Gadodia was not known to him nor he knows as to when did she died. Laxmi Narayan Gadodia and Ram Gopal Gadodia were brothers and whole of the Gadodia market was owned by them. He could not tell the municipal number of the Gadodia market. Smt. Saraswati Devi was the wife of Sh. Laxmi Narayan Gadodia. He denied the suggestion that the old number 3153 was not changed to 6657. He also denied that neither 3153 (old) nor 6657 (new) were owned by Smt. Saraswati Devi. He could not tell as to whether the property no.6650 to 6622 and 6648 to 6653 are recorded in the name of Sh. Laxmi Narayan and Ram Gopal Gadodia. He claimed that he does not understand what is evacuee property non evacuee and composite property. He denied the suggestion that the premises no.6657 was a composite property and was under the jurisdiction of competent officer under the Evacuee Interest Separation Act. He conceded that property no.6661 to 6668, Gali Bansi was auctioned in 1969 and the same was purchased by the plaintiff and his brother. The old number of 6661 to 6668 was 3355. Sale Certificate dated 05.06.1969 has been issued in the name of plaintiff. He came to know about the proceedings in the custodian in the year 2000 when he received the notice. Neither he nor his brother had inspected the file of the custodian department at any time. Faces towards the property there is vacant plot and on its left side properly no.6658 is situated. Property no.6658 to 6660 are owned by Sh. Radhey Shyam Rattan Lal and old number of the same was 3154. He conceded that vacant plot adjacent to property in question does not bear any municipal number and the passage of property no.6656 (old number 3152) opens in the vacant plot and it belong to Shyam Sunder Achar Wala. He also could not tell that a temple has been made on municipal no.6655 and he also could not tell the old number of temple property. He conceded that the property the old number of which was 3155 was a custodian property and the same was put to auction and the proclamation of the same was also issued. He denied the suggestion that Ex.DW2/a to DW2/9 (wrongly referred in the affidavit as Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/9) are forged and fabricated. He admitted that Ex.DW2/7 containing three pages is a photocopy. He could not tell as to whether Kanshi Ram Shyam Lal had also given bid in the auction in property no.3155. He admitted that shop of Kanshi Ram in Khari Baoli is 6646 while on property on upper floor the number is 6647. He conceded that after municipal number 6647 the municipal no.6648 pertains to the property of Gadodia market. Property no.6649 pertains to the shop of Jagjit Singh. He could not tell which property is situated after property no.6653. In between property of temple and property no.6656 there is a lane and no property and there is no number of that lane. He admitted that next property to 6656 is the property bearing no.6657 which is the disputed property. Kanwar Sen was the partner of his father Kanshi Nath and the name of the firm was Kanshi Nath Kanwar Sen. Sh. Kanwar Sen remained in possession of the disputed premises no.6657 from 1961 to 1975 as a partner. He conceded that there had been litigation between Kanwar Sen and Kanshi Nath regarding the disputed premises. He conceded that during the pendency of the said litigation, Sh. C. S. Bhandari was appointed as a Local Commissioner. He conceded that they never made a claim regarding their possession or title in the custodian proceedings regarding property no.6657. He could not tell as to for how much period the property no.6657 had remained under seal during the dispute between Kanwar Sen and Kanshi Nath regarding its possession. He denied the suggestion that board of Kanshi Nath and Shyam Lal was put up only for filing application in July, 2002. He never attended any Arbitration proceedings mentioned in para 5 of the affidavit but his brother late Sh. Ram Kishore had attended the said proceedings. Neither sealing nor de-sealing of the property bearing no.6657 had taken place in his presence. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Roop Chand was having shop of potato selling and was known as Roop Chand Aalu Wala. He also denied that the property bearing no.6657 was occupied by said Roop Chand as tenant/licencee of the custodian. He claimed that the shop of potato seller was adjoining the shop of Vaidji. He also conceded that the adjoining shop of said potato seller was of Sh. Tara Chand and shop adjoining to that of Tara Chand is of Dhan Raj Shri Kishan. He could not tell as to what rent can be fetched by any accommodation at ground floor similar to of 6657 on the date of filing of the suit or thereafter.
10. DW-3 Sh. Padam Chand Gupta stated in his examination in chief tendered by way of affidavit that he was one of the Arbitrators to the Board of Arbitrator alongwith Sh. Rameshwar Dass, Sh. Durga Prasad, Sh. Kishan Chand members of Kirana Committee appointed by the said Kiranan Committee registered in pursuance of order of Ld. Civil Judge in suit no. 219/75 titled as Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Kanwar Sen Gupta & Ors. The property in question i.e. 6657 was sealed on 02.11.1975 by the Local Commissioner Sh. C.S. Bhandari. The property in question was de- sealed by the Arbitrator and the physical vacant possession of the property in question was given back to the defendant in his presence. During cross examination he claimed that he remained the Secretary of Kirana Committee from 1974 to 1976. His business is at 4046, Naya Bazar under the name of Loti Ram Makhan Lal. The property in dispute is located at ground floor. The said property was de-sealed in his presence probably in November, 1975. He had not seen Kanshi Nath or Shyam Lal. The Kirana committee maintains lists of its members which can be obtained by anyone on payment of charges from the office of Kirana Committee. In the Arbitration proceedings the dispute was regarding the shop of Kanwar Sen s/o Lal Devi Prasad. He had no dealing with the firm M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal which was having a shop bearing no.6646. He conceded that during the period 1974 to 1976 the same shop and municipal number was of M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal. During the said period Sh. Rajender Kumar S/o Shyam Lal was residing on the upper floor above the shop no.6646 and the municipal number of the said upper floor was 6647. He could not tell as to when the firm M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal was constituted and who were partners thereof. He admitted that he is not personally conversant about the details of the partners of the said firm. The shop no.6646 on which a board of M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal is existing is closed except that the shop is lying locked. He has no knowledge if the firm is functioning or nor.
11. DW-4 Sudesh brought original agreement and application in prescribed proforma of M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal premises no.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi concerning the electricity connection bearing no.2ZK15295. The copy of the same is Ex.DW4/1. It was commercial connection.
During cross examination he could not confirm whether the said electricity connection is still in existence or not in the given premises. The document Ex.DW4/1 pertains to sanctioning of connection. He admitted that on the basis of Ex.DW4/1 it can not be said whether actually the sanctioned was carried out or not.
12. DW-5 Sh. Rajender Kumar Gupta in his examination in chief tendered by way of affidavit has also reiterated the contents of written statement. During cross examination he also conceded that he never seen or met Saraswati Devi. He also claimed that he does not know what is custodian or composite property or what is evacuee or non evacuee property. He conceded that property no.3155 (old) was custodian property, though it was not auctioned in his presence. He could not tell if property no.315(old) was evaluated by the Custodian before auction. He had not seen the proclamation of the auction of the said property. He claimed that as per his knowledge property no.6657 was owned by Smt. Saraswati Devi who handed over the possession of the same to defendant no.1. He could not tell as to when the municipal number of the property in question was changed to 6657. He could not tell as to who used to pay the house tax of the said property. Although the sale certificate dated 05.06.1969 Ex.DW2/8 was seen by him but he does not know the contents of the same regarding particulars of the same. He conceded that property number is written as VI/6657 (new) Khari Baoli, Delhi in Ex.DW5/1 at mark C but he could not tell as to what is written in reply dated 06.03.1982 by the custodian in its reply Ex.DW5/1 regarding the old and new number of property in question. He denied the suggestion that even in MCD records the property in question does not stand in the name of Saraswati Devi. He conceded that the property no.6663-64 is not just next to the property in question. He claimed of having seen the copy of the sale deed dated 28.06.1969 in the name of the plaintiff and as per his knowledge it pertains to the property no. 3155 (old) corresponding 6661 to 6668 (new). He could not explained the term symbolic possession. He also could not tell the exact measurement of the property in question. He conceded that property in question is known by municipal number 6657 (old no.3153). He claimed that he can not read the site plan filed on the record. He could not tell any accuracy in Ex.PW1/1. According to him plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. He also could not say as to how much a shop can fetch having measurement of 14 X 9 feet ground floor, Khari Baoli, Delhi.
13. I have carefully heard the rival submissions of the counsels for the parties. I have also throughly perused the entire relevant material placed in the file.
My issues wise findings are as under:-
14. ISSUE No.1:-
Whether the claim of the plaintiff is instituted within prescribed period of limitation? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the plaintiff. In para 3 of preliminary objections of their written statement, the defendants have claimed that the suit as filed by the plaintiff is time barred and as such the same is not maintainable.
In the corresponding para of the replication, the plaintiff has claimed that the suit is maintainable in view of the correct facts that the suit is not time barred in any manner and the objection taken by the defendants is false and frivolous.
According to Ld. counsel for defendant, the present suit being one for possession is barred by limitation. In the present case it is the case of the plaintiff that he became the owner in 1986. There is evidence to show that the defendants have been in the suit property for many years before that, therefore, it has to be assumed that the possession was in any case adverse to the plaintiff's title since it has to be assumed that plaintiff was in the knowledge of the defendants' occupation. It is also asserted by him that it is difficult to believe that one who has a neighbouring property would not know as to who is in occupation of the suit property. There is no answer as to why the plaintiff has not taken the possession after 21.03.1986 on which day he allegedly perfected his title, so it has to be assumed that the plaintiff was aware of the occupation of the defendants and did not assert his title and thus is now estopped from raising any objection to the plea of the adverse possession and as such the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
On the other hand according to the plaintiff, during the proceedings of issuing notice under rule 11 (E) of Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules, 1951, in the court of Ms. Neena Krishna Bansal, the then Competent Officer, the defendants had preferred an application dated 08.07.2002, the copy of the same was supplied to the plaintiff, who preferred the reply dated 05.08.2002. Then only the plaintiff came to know about the claim of the defendants about occupation and possession of the premises in dispute. As per judicial record and admitted record of custodian as well as competent officer under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act & Rules, it was reported that only Sh. Roop Chand S/o Sh. Babu Lal was a tenant in the suit property bearing no.VI/3155 (old) 6657 (new) @ Rs.90.62ps. per month. The defendants were in complete knowledge about the proceedings going on in the court of Mrs. Neena K. Bansal, the then Competent Officer, Delhi. In the application preferred u/o 1 rule 10 CPC, the defendants have claimed themselves to be in lawful occupation and possession of the premises in dispute. No proceedings of the Competent Officer were challenged within limitation by the defendants. It was only when the application u/o 1 rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was preferred by the defendants then only the plaintiff came to know for the first time about the alleged illegal occupation of the defendants. The notices dated 18.09.2002 Ex.PW1/4 & Ex.PW1/7 were duly served on the defendants through registered AD and UPC cover vide Ex.PW1/6 & Ex.PW1/8 respectively. The plaintiff in his statement as PW-1 has mentioned about these facts in para 5, 6 & 7 of his statement which remained unchallenged in the cross examination by the defendants as per principles of law of evidence, if examination in chief remains unchallenged in cross examination, the same is liable to be presumed as correct under section 114 of the India Evidence Act.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid rival submissions of the counsels for the parties, and in my considered opinion the plaintiff has successfully proved that the present suit as filed by him has been filed within limitation because as soon as he came to know about the tresspass by the defendants which was disclosed to the plaintiff only in July, 2002 before the Ld. Competent Authority, Delhi. The defendants were having knowledge about the proceedings going on before the Ld. Competent Authority, but they did not challenge any proceedings of the Competent Officer or the orders passed under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act and the rules. It was only when the application under order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 CPC was preferred by the defendant then the plaintiff came to know about the alleged occupation of the defendants and he accordingly issued notices dated 18.09.2002 Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/7. Accordingly, the issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue stands decided accordingly.
15. Now for the sake of convenience, I will take issue no.6 & 7 prior to the other remaining issues.
ISSUE No.6:-
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable without permission of the competent authority under Slum Act? OPD. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants, who in the preliminary objection no.7 of their written statement have claimed that since no permission under the Slums Act has been obtained by the plaintiff before filing the present suit, so the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
In the corresponding para of the replication, the plaintiff has claimed that this preliminary objection raised by the defendants is wrong because no permission under Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 is required prior to filing the present suit. There has never been any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants are neither tenants nor are licencee in any manner, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable. The defendants have neither produced any evidence or document to prove this issue. They have also not argued on this point. Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 relates to protection of tenants in slum areas from eviction, which require prior permission by the landlord before filing an eviction petition against tenant before the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The relevant portion of the Section 19 the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 is as under:-
Section 19 - Proceedings of eviction of tenants not to be taken without permission of the competent authority.
No permission under the said Act is required prior to filing the present suit. There has never been any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants are neither tenants nor are licencees in any manner, rather they are claiming themselves owners by way of adverse possession, so the suit as filed by the plaintiff is not hit by the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. Thus the issue is liable to be decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff and the same stands decided accordingly.
16. ISSUE No.7:-
Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the defendants, who have raised the preliminary objection in para no.5 in their written statement that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court and jurisdiction and as such the same is liable for dismissal on this score too. In the corresponding para of the replication the plaintiff while denying this objection has claimed that suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as detailed in para 7 of the plaint. In para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as under:-
> at Rs. One Lakh for the relief of possession, being the reasonable market value of the property in dispute unauthorizedly occupied;
> for the relief of mesne profit he has valued it at Rs.3,60,000/- @ Rs.10,000/- per month being the claim for three years upto 15.01.2003; and > for the relief of enquiry into the future mesne profit at Rs.200/-. A total court fee of Rs.6,883/- on total valuation of Rs.4,60,200/- has been paid by the plaintiff and he has also given undertaking to pay the deficient court fee, if any, as and when directed by the court.
The defendants have been failed to plead any fact or reason as to how the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction in answer to the specific pleadings in para 7 of the plaint. Mere denial is no pleading of a fact. Further no evidence is led on this issue and no submissions have been made regarding this issue by the defendants. Hence this issue is liable to be decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue stands decided accordingly.
17. Now again for convenience sake, I will take issue no.5 prior to other remaining issues i.e. issue no.2, 3 & 4.
ISSUE No.5:-
Whether the defendant no.1 is exclusive owner on account of adverse possession in respect of the suit property? OPD. The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the defendants, who have taken a preliminary objection in their written statement to the effect that the property in question is in absolute, open, uninterrupted and continuous lawful occupation and physical possession of the defendants since 1949-50. The defendants are the owners of the property in question by way of adverse possession. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief from the court.
In the corresponding para of the replication, the plaintiff has denied the above claim of the defendants while making assertion that the defendants are neither the tenants nor allottees in any part of the suit property. They are in unlawful occupation of the same, which for the first time came to the knowledge of the plaintiff during the proceedings in the court of Ld. Competent Officer, Delhi. The defendants are neither the owners of the suit property nor had been in adverse possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff, prior to the knowledge which was disclosed for the first time during the proceedings before the Competent Officer. As per submissions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff has got every right, title or interest being owner of the suit property. The defendants are neither the owner nor have been in physical and peaceful occupation of the suit property since 1949-50. The defendant no.1 to 3 have illegally and unauthorizedly trespassed in the suit property and are thus illegally occupying the same without any authority. Being the owner the plaintiff has got every right to ask the defendants to vacate and handover the suit property. The defendants being in illegal possession without any right are liable to pay damages for its use and occupation. The plaintiff has never demanded any rent because the defendants are neither the tenant nor allottees in any part of the suit property. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has forcefully argued that the defendants on the one hand are pleading in the written statement that the defendants are in lawful occupation having received the same from Smt. Saraswati Devi, the alleged owner, and in the same breath pleading that they are in absolute, open, uninterrupted and continuous lawful occupation and physical occupation since the year 1949-50, therefore, they are the owners of the property by way of adverse possession. The defendants can not take both the pleas which are not only contradictory but are distractive of each other.
On the other hand, according to Ld. Counsel for defendant the defendants are in continuous lawful occupation and physical possession of the suit property since the year 1949-50. They are the owners of the property in question by way of adverse possession. He contended that it is a settled principle of law that the possession need not be known by the plaintiff to be adverse as long as it is opened and capable of being known by the parties who are interested in the property. He also claimed that it is difficult to believe that anyone who has a neighbouring property would not know as to who is in occupation of the suit property. Further there is no answer as to why the plaintiff has not taken the possession after 21.03.1986 on which day he allegedly perfected his title. So it has to be assumed that the plaintiff was aware of the occupation of the defendant and did not assert his title and thus is not estopped from objecting to the plea of adverse possession. In any case there is evidence of defendants possession in the forms of exhibits DW1/1, DW1/2, DW4/1, DW5/A-K. Since the true owner was not the plaintiff, so the defendant is also entitled to the suit property on a title based on possession. Defendant has an absolute title against the whole world including the plaintiff.
I have heard the respective rival submissions of the counsels for the parties on this issue.
The expression adverse possession means a hostile possession, i.e. a possession which is expressly implied in denial of the title of the true owner. It is always a unilateral act and in order to constitute adverse possession, the possession must be in denial of the title through owner. Person pleading adverse possession must specifically plea date from which possession is claimed to be hostile. Mere possession or mere long possession of the defendants to the personal knowledge of the plaintiff can not constitute adverse possession against him. Where the possession is referred by the defendant to be a lawful title, it shall not be considered to be adverse. A permissible possession can not be said to be in denial of the title of the owner and is consequently not adverse to the owner and it will not enable the defendants to obtained a title by adverse possession. The onus is on the defendants to show when and how there possession became adverse. The defendants can not be allowed to aprobate and reprobate by taking the inconsistent pleas together which are not only contradictory but are distractive of each other. The defendants have failed to show any denial of the title either of the custodian or of the plaintiff in respect of the property in dispute. The defendants who base their title merely on alleged lawful possession for a long time must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that their possession was hostile to the real owner which amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. The period for such hostile possession can only commence from the point of time when the alleged possession would have been declared hostile by the defendants. Admittedly, the property in dispute was a custodian property which was only in the year 1986 was fully conveyed in favour of the plaintiff vide Sale Deed Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. Accordingly, thereafter the Competent Officer under the provisions of Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act and rules 1951 have ordered to issue notice u/o 11 (E) to the actual occupant who according to the records of custodian was the actual occupant. The said notice in form M was issued to Sh. Roop Chand S/o Babu Lal. The premises bearing no.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi was found locked since long and Sh. Roop Chand having died, report was received in the court of Competent Officer. It was also reported that someone has put up the board Kashi Nath Shaym Lal on the locked premises. As per the records of the Custodian neither the defendants were in the possession nor were tenants or licencee in respect of the disputed premises. On 08.07.2002, when the defendant preferred application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC then only the plaintiff for the first time came to know that the defendants are claiming lawful possession without any right to do so. The plaintiffs have produced the certified copies of the judicial records and proceedings regarding the property in dispute since 16.04.1983 till August, 2002. The defendants have failed to prove their case. The defendants did not produce any evidence that the defendants ever occupied the premises in dispute while the property remained vested in the custodian. At this juncture, if any hostile possession is claimed and proved against the custodian, it must be continuous and uninterrupted for a period of more then 30 years. In the case in hand the defendants neither pleaded nor proved any hostile possession against the custodian during the period it remained vested in the custodian. The defendants themselves have brought evidence to the effect that some Kanwar Sen Gupta was in possession during the period 1962-1974 in the property in dispute. Further as per the record of custodian it was only Roop Chand S/o Babu Lal who was lawful occupant in the premises and to whom the notices to attorn u/s 11 (E) of the aforesaid rules was issued. According to the record of the custodian said Sh. Roop Chand was a tenant @ Rs.90.62ps. per month. This is proved on record by the report dated 31.01.2000 by Asstt. Custodian against this the defendants did not produce any evidence. The plaintiff has brought on record that during this period board of M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal on the locked premises was put up as the said Sh. Roop Chand was reported to have died. Thus the plaintiff has proved that the defendants have trespassed in the premises in dispute only during the proceedings before the Ld. Competent Officer which has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff only in July, 2002 in the proceedings before the Ld. Competent Officer, Delhi. Thus it is clear that in the absence of any proof or pleading regarding the essential ingredients of claim of adverse possession and title on the basis of the adverse possession in respect of the suit property, the defendants have failed to discharge their onus to prove this issue. In these circumstances issue is liable to be decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue stands decided accordingly.
18. Now I will proceed to decide issue no.2, 3 & 4
19. ISSUE No.2:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the property bearing Municipal No.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi specific shown red in the site plan from the defendant? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the property bearing M. No.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi vide registered Sale Deeds, Sale Certificate and other documents duly produced and proved by him on record. The defendants are neither the tenants nor licencee in the suit property and there has not been any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the premises in dispute. The defendants have neither paid nor the plaintiff has ever received any rent whatsoever in respect of the premises in dispute. The defendants have illegally trespassed in the premises in dispute which was disclosed to the plaintiff only in July, 2002 in the proceedings before the Ld. Competent Authority.
On the other hand according to the defendants they are the owners in possession of the property having purchased the same from one Smt. Saraswati Devi and they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property since more than 50 years. They have denied that they are in unauthorized and illegal possession of the premises in question. They claimed manipulation of the records and concealment of the facts by the plaintiff and pleaded that the Municipal no. of the subject matter of the suit is VI/3153(old) corresponding to new No.6657 and it is claimed that as the said property was owned by Smt. Saraswati Devi, the same could not be vested in the custodian/Ministry of Rehabilitation. PW-1 in his examination in chief has proved the plan of the subject matter of the suit Ex.PW1/1. The registered Sale Deed dated 28.06.1969 through which the plaintiff had purchased 8 annas and 3-¼ pie out of one rupee i.e. non evacuee share of Hakim Mehmood Sayeed Khan in property no. VI/6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi is also duly proved by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/2. The other non evacuee co-share of 14- ½ pies was transferred to the plaintiff in the proceedings before the competent authority against receipt of Rs.16,000/- vide receipt dated 15.11.1985 (marked A) Ex.PW1/2A. The remaining 6-6-¼ pies share of property No.VI/6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi being an evacuee interest vested in the custodian and was transferred by Smt. Aruna Suresh, the then Competent Officer for the price of Rs.26,087/- vide registered Sale Deed dated 21.03.1986 duly proved as Ex.PW1/3. Thus the plaintiff has established to have become the owner of the whole of the suit property bearing Municipal No.VI/6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The defendants are neither the tenants nor licencee in the suit property and there has not been any relationship of landlord and tenants between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the premises in dispute. The defendants have neither paid nor the plaintiff has ever received any rent. The defendants have illegally trespassed in the premises in dispute which came in the knowledge of plaintiff only in July, 2002 in the proceedings before the Ld. Competent Authority. The defendants are simultaneously claiming the lawful occupation of the premises through Smt. Saraswati Devi who was the erstwhile owner on one hand and on the other hand claiming themselves to be the owner by way of the adverse possession. Both these claims are mutually destructive to each other and as such they are liable to be rejected. The plaintiff has proved on record that the plaintiff became owner in respect of 9 Annas 5-¾ pie share in a rupee in property No.VI/6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The remaining 6 Annas and 6-¼ pie share in a rupee in respect of property No.VI/6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi was an evacuee interest which vested in the custodian. A fresh information was ordered to be entered in respect of the said evacuee share vide order dated 25.03.1983 of Sh. S.M. Gupta the then Competent Officer, Delhi. Accordingly notices in form 'C' were ordered to be issued to the interest persons by registered AD while notice in form 'B' was ordered to be got published in the newspaper National Herald and Nav Bharat Times for information of the general public. Notice in form 'B' was issued under Sec.6 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act. Letter dated 30.03.1983 was written for publication of notice in the newspapers National Herald and Nav Bharat Times. Notice in form 'C' dated 28.03.1983 was issued by Sh. S.M. Gupta, the then Competent Officer, Delhi by registered AD. The publication of notice for information of the public was issued by publication in the National Herald dated 13.04.1983 and in Nav Bharat of 16.04.1983. The defendants have also admitted the record of the Competent Officer. Thus it is clear from the admitted judicial records of the court of the Competent Officer, Delhi that the remaining 6 Annas and 6-¼ pie share of the property No.VI/6657 was duly transferred by Smt. Aruna Suresh, the then Competent Officer, Delhi under Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 vide registered Sale Deed Ex.PW1/3 and the plaintiff became the owner of the whole of the suit property bearing Municipal No.VI/6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi.
The plaintiff has also proved the notice dated 18.09.2002 Ex.PW1/4 and its service upon defendants asking the defendants to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession and pay the damages for its use and occupation to the plaintiff. The defendants were required to hand over vacant peaceful possession and to pay damages but the possession was neither handed over nor the damages were paid.
In para 7 & 8 of the statement of PW-1 it has been specifically deposed that, ''The defendants are neither tenants nor licencee in the property bearing Municipal No.6657.
There has not been any relationship of landlord and tenant between me and the defendants. The defendants had neither paid nor I have ever received any rent whatsoever. The defendants have illegally trespassed which was disclosed to me only in July, 2002 during the proceedings before the Ld. Competent Authority, Mrs. Neena Bansal, Competent Officer, Delhi. I had always seen the premises in dispute lying locked and closed without any board on the same. I have lawfully filed the present suit for possession and mesne profits which is correct.
The premises in dispute consists of ground floor only bearing Municipal No.6657 as shown red in the plan and as situated in the market, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi and can easily fetch at least Rs.10,000/- per month.
I am thus deprived of Rs.10,000/- per month because of illegal and unauthorized occupation by the defendants. I am claiming damages/ mesne profits for its unlawful use and occupation for a period of 3 years upto 15th January, 2003 although I had come to know about the illegal and unauthorized occupation of the defendants for the first time only in July, 2002. I am entitled under law to claim for a period of 3 years upto the date of filing the suit.
I have claimed future damages at the same rate till the decision of the suit and also till the date of handing over the vacant and peaceful possession by the defendants to me. My suit is correct and is liable to be decreed as prayed for.'' It is pertinent to note that the defendants in their application dated 08.07.2002 under Order 1 rule 10 read Sec. 151 CPC before Mrs. Neena Bansal Krishna, Competent Officer have pleaded themselves to be in lawful occupation under Smt. Saraswati Devi and did not claim any adverse possession. The plaintiff served notice dated 18.09.2002 Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/7 on the defendants which were duly served to the defendants. The defendants in spite of the service of the said notice to hand over vacant and peaceful possession by the end of 31st October, 2002 have failed to reply the said notice. Thus under law the presumption is liable to be raised that the defendants have admitted the contents of the said notice Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/7 as correct. After the end of the period mentioned in the notice Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/7, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession and mesne profits on the basis of the documents duly proved by the plaintiff. The ownership and the identity of the subject matter has been duly proved by the plaintiff. It is abundantly clear from the custodian record that Sh. Roop Chand was the actual occupant under the custodian in the premises in dispute in whose name the learned Competent Authority had issued the required notice dated 15.03.2000. Even it is clear from the record that the premises in dispute were always found locked and were locked even as per various documents filed by the parties on record from the house tax department. The defendants have claimed in their written statement two contradictory pleas:
(i).that the property in question is bearing No.VI/3153(old)/6657(new) which was originally owned by Smt, Saraswati Devi w/o Seth Laxmi Narain who handed over the physical vacant possession of the said property (ground floor) to M/s Kanshi Nath Shyam Lal in the year 1949-50 and thus the defendants 1 to 3 have claimed their lawful possession since the year 1949-50.
(ii).simultaneously the defendants have claimed that the defendants have become the absolute and exclusive owner by way of adverse possession.
In support of these pleas the defendants have neither produced any documentary evidence which may show that the property in dispute was either Municipal no.VI/3153(old) or any proof whatsoever documentary or oral evidence to prove their claim that the ownership vested in Smt. Saraswati Devi and did not vest in the custodian. The documentary evidence in the shape of certified copies of the judicial records of the Competent Authority and duly registered Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 clearly prove the case of the plaintiff and disprove the defence of the defendants. The defendants no.2 and 3 have examined themselves as DW2 and DW5 and have filed their affidavits in evidence which is nothing but reproduction of the written statement filed by the defendants. In addition to their own affidavits, the defendants have examined DW1 Sh. Y.S. Negi from Sales Tax Office and sought to prove certificates under Delhi Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax as DW1/1 and DW1/2 claiming that those certificates pertained to 6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, New Gadodia Market, Delhi. In his cross examination DW-1 was failed to explain that how the figures in ink 6657 and some initials came to occur in Ex.DW1/2 encircled red. He also admitted that in the documents produced by him there is no application form for the issue of aforesaid registration certificates. DW-1 further admitted in his cross examination that whenever there is any modification, change, addition, alteration in the original certificate, it is to be done under orders of the officer concerned in writing with his full signatures and seal. He further admitted in cross examination that premises no.6657 is not mentioned in the original application form, the photostat copy of which is Ex.DPX. The photostat copy of ST-3 was also got produced as Ex.DPX-1 and on the basis of DPX and DPX-1 duplicate photocopy received was exhibited as DW1/1. Thus from the cross examination and perusal of the documents it is clear that the certificates have been manipulated so as to include no.6657. Further according to the case of the defendant number of the premises in dispute is VI/3153(old)/6657, then how the old documents Ex.DW1/1, and DPX, DPX- 1 and DPX-2 could bear new no.6657(new). It clearly proves the fabrication of the documents for creation of false evidence. There are two admitted documents Ex.P1 and P2 on record which clearly prove that the defendant no.1 M/s Kanshi Nath Sham Lal was having their shop bearing Municipal no.6646, Khari Baoli, Delhi and residence at 6647, Khari Baoli above 6646. The business was carried on at that address and all the certificates under Sales Tax Act were applied for and obtained on that address only. The defendants who have tried to show from some copies alleged to have been from House Tax Department, MCD claiming that those copies are showing the name of Saraswati Devi against property no.6657, Khari Baoli in the year 1956 (Ex.DW2/1 and Ex.PW2/9) which are in Urdu. These documents have not been proved in accordance with law by calling for the original records. Otherwise also even if these are to be taken on its face value Ex.DW2/1 and Ex.DW2/9 are not the documents or evidence to prove title in respect of the property no.3155(old)/6657(new) which is the subject matter of the suit. In these documents the defendants have not been shown as occupants. The defendants have examined DW3 Sh. Padam Chand Gupta who had deposed that there was civil suit no.219/1975:
Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. Kanwar Sain Gupta & Others, which was filed by the defendants against Sh. Kanwar Sain Gupta who was actually said to be in possession from the year 1962 to 1975. Thus it is clear by their own witness that they were not in physical possession of the premises in dispute in the years 1962 to 1975 and prior to that. This witness has also admitted that the defendants are having their shop in the main Khari Baoli which bears municipal no.6646 and their residence was on the upper floor of the shop no.6646, the municipal number of which was 6647. So this witness also does not support the defences raised by the defendants. Another DW4 Smt. Sudesh from BSES has been examined to show that some application was made for obtaining electricity connection by Kanwar Sain Gupta in the year 1962 which is sought to be proved as Ex.DW4/1. When DW4 was cross examined, she said that there is no other record available and Ex.DW4/1 pertains to only applying for connection. The witness DW4 has specifically admitted that it cannot be said as to on the basis of this application whether any connection was actually sanctioned or not.
The defendants DW2 and DW5 in their affidavits Ex.D2 and Ex.D5 have claimed that Smt. Saraswati Devi handed over the physical vacant possession of the property in question (ground floor) in the year 1949-50 and since then the defendants are occupying as lawful occupants under Smt. Saraswati Devi as the owner of the property. It is also proved on record that the property no.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali being composite property was dealt with by the Competent Officer and vide various judicial orders, proceedings and duly proved registered documents on record, the plaintiff is the owner and prior to that the same vested in the custodian/Government property and was dealt with under the provisions of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. The defendants have failed to prove or produce any evidence on record either documentary or oral which may prove that Smt. Saraswwati Devi was ever the owner of the property which is the subject matter of the suit. Even by the defendants own admissions about the correctness of the record of the Competent Officer regarding this property, it is clearly proved on record that the subject matter of the suit i.e. VI/3155(old)/6657(new), Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi which was a composite property and in respect of which sale deeds Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 have been lawfully proved. The defendants have been completely failed to put any shadow of doubt whatsoever in respect of the lawful execution and correctness of the original Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. Moreover, the defendants have not pleaded in the written statement as to how and when the defendants claimed to have declared their alleged possession as hostile to the plaintiff. There is no pleading in the written statement to this necessary ingredient to claim the defence of adverse possession. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the defendants have ever claimed any hostile possession at any period of time against any one. In view of the admitted fact, the subject matter of the suit had vested in the custodian till it was transferred to the plaintiff vide Sale Deeds Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. Thus it becomes incumbent on the defendants to show and prove the alleged adverse possession hostile to the custodian and being a Government property till it is vested in the custodian, the period of hostile possession is to be proved continuously for a period of more than 30 years. The defendants neither claimed any hostile possession nor alleged any adverse possession against the custodian for any period. The defendants have not claimed hostile possession but have claimed lawful possession under some Smt. Saraswati Devi. No evidence has been led about the ownership of Smt. Saraswati Devi. The MCD records including copies from the house tax record have neither shown Smt. Saraswati Devi as owner nor have shown the defendants as occupants of property bearing municipal no.6657, Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi at any point of time. The defendants are also otherwise estopped from raising the plea of adverse possession when their own case is of lawful possession having allegedly obtained from Smt. Saraswati Devi. The defendants cannot aprobate and reprobate at the same time. The defendants cannot claim themselves to be in lawful possession allegedly having received from Smt. Saraswati Devi in 1949-50 and at the same time allegedly claiming themselves in adverse possession. The lawful possession can never be claimed to be adverse or hostile. Thus the defendants have failed either to plead hostile possession or to prove any adverse possession. The limitation of 12 years against rights of the plaintiff would have commenced only from the period when the defendants had declared at any point of time themselves in hostile possession to the plaintiff so as to start the limitation of 12 years from that moment of specific declaration of hostile possession to the plaintiff. In the present case neither there is any evidence on record oral or documentary to show that the defendants have ever claimed their alleged possession as hostile to anyone including the custodian or the plaintiff. The defendants in these circumstances have no basis whatsoever to allege any adverse possession for any period of time. The defendants cannot claim any adverse possession merely on the basis of alleged lawful possession from Smt. Saraswati Devi, alleged owner. The defendants cannot claim any title against any one on the plea of alleged permissive possession even if it might have been for any length of period. The defendants have completely failed even to prove their alleged possession prior to the year 2000.
The falsity of the defence raised by the defendants is clear from this fact that the defendants when filed their application dated 08.07.2002 under order 1 rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC in the court of Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna, Competent Officer, they did not utter a single word about any of the defences raised in their written statement either about the alleged possession having received from Smt. Saraswati Devi or regarding alleged defence of adverse possession. Further the defendants despite service of notices dated 18.09.2002 by the plaintiff preferred to remain silent and did not reply and thus under law it is presumed that the facts mentioned in the notices were accepted to be correct by the defendants. Further the defendants have completely failed in showing that in what manner and how the judicial orders, documents and public records upon which the plaintiff is relying like Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Municipal records D1 to D22 etc. are false or manipulated or fabricated. The plaintiff having proved his ownership through the documentary as well as ocular evidence on record and the defendants having failed to rebut or prove their defences; the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the property bearing municipal No.6657 (Ground Floor), Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi specifically shown red in the site plan Ex.PW1/1 from the defendants. Issue stands decided accordingly.
20. Now, I will take issue no.3 & 4 together as they are interconnected.
ISSUE No.3:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits/damages amounting to Rs.3,60,000/- at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m. for three years till 15.01.2003? OPP.
ISSUE No.4:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the damages w.e.f. filing the suit and future damages from the defendants? If so, at what rate? OPP.
The onus to prove both the issues have been placed upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has pleaded in para 4 of the plaint that the defendants are neither tenants nor licencee of the plaintiff and there has not been any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the premises in dispute. The plaintiffs has further pleaded that the defendants have neither paid nor the plaintiff has ever received any rent whatsoever in respect of the premises in dispute. The defendants have illegally trespassed in the said premises which was disclosed to the plaintiff only in the proceedings before the learned Competent Authority, Mrs. Neena Bansal Krishna. The plaintiff thus have claimed mesne profit @ Rs.10,000/- per month for the use and occupation of the premises in dispute. Admittedly, the premises in dispute are situated in busy commercial area and the plaintiff in his evidence has proved as PW1 that the said premises bearing municipal no.6657 shown red in the plan can easily fetch at least Rs.10,000/- per month and because of illegal and unauthorized occupation by the defendants, the plaintiff is loosing at least Rs.10,000/- per month; therefore, the plaintiff has claimed damages/mesne profits for a period of 3 years as legally entitled upto 15th January, 2003. The plaintiff specifically deposed that the plaintiff came to know about the illegal and unauthorized occupation of the premises by the defendants only in July, 2002.
The defendants in it reply merely denied that the said premises can fetch at least Rs.10,000/- per month or the plaintiff can claim damages for a period of 3 years. In evidence the DW2 when cross examined on this aspect stated that ''I cannot tell as what rent one can obtain any accommodation at ground floor similar to of 6657 on the date of filing of the suit or thereafter.'' Further except mere denial the defendants did not lead any evidence against this. Admittedly, the property in question is 14'X9' at ground floor of the main market at Khari Baoli. DW5 when asked in cross examination regarding this deposed that ''I cannot say how much rent a shop can fetch having measurement of 14'X9' at ground floor in Khari Baoli market''. Thus the plaintiff has proved by affirmative evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages/mesne profit @ Rs.10,000/- per month for 3 years as claimed in the plaint.
The onus to prove the lawful possession, in what capacity or in respect of the alleged property was on the defendants. The defendants have completely failed to prove their alleged defence of either lawful possession or adverse possession. In these circumstances, especially when the notices Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/7 having served on the defendants and the defendants having failed to reply or rebut the same, a strong presumption in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants arises. The defendants are thus liable to pay damages/mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) p.m. as claimed in the plaint i.e. Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs. Thee Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) for use and occupation of premises in dispute upto 15th January, 2003 and future mesne profits/damages at the same rate till the vacant and peaceful possession is handed over to the plaintiff. Issues stand decided accordingly.
21. RELIEF In view of my findings on the foregoing issues, a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants is hereby passed thereby directing the defendants to hand over the physical, vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises bearing Municipal No.6657 (Ground Floor) situated as Gali Bansi Chawal Wali, Khari Baoli, Delhi- 110006 (shown in red in the plan) to the plaintiff. Further a decree for damages/mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) p.m. as claimed in the plaint i.e. Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs. Thee Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) for use and occupation of premises in dispute upto 15th January, 2003 is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants are also directed to pay future mesne profits/damages at the same rate i.e. @ Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) p.m from the date of filing of the suit till the handing over of the physical, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff by the defendants. The plaintiff is also directed to pay the deficient court fee, if any, within the period of three weeks from the date of passing of judgment and thereafter, the Decree Sheet will be drawn up. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
22. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
court today on 21.05.2008) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI
CS. No.216/06
21.05.2008
Present: As before.
Vide a separate judgment, suit of the plaintiff is decreed in his favour and against the defendants.
Decree Sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ADJ/DELHI/21.05.2008