Delhi District Court
Sh. Ravinder Kumar vs Smt. Saroj on 5 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG: CIVIL JUDGE:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURT: NEW DELHI
C.S No: 257/14
Unique case ID No: 02405C0248762014
IN THE MATTER OF
Sh. Ravinder Kumar,
S/o Sh. Phool Kumar,
R/o Plot no. 19, Khasra no. 141/12
Baba Haridas Enclave,
Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi 110072 ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Saroj,
W/o Late Sh. Sukhpal Singh
2. Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Sita Ram,
Both R/o
RZ/A136,
Baba Haridas Enclave,
Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi 110072 ... Defendants
ORDER
1. By this order I will dispose off the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
2. Case of the plaintiff as per plaint is that she had purchased the CS No. 257/14 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Saroj & Anr.
Order dated 05.03.2015 Page no. 1 of 8 built up property bearing Plot no. 19, area measuring 35 sq. yds. (15 ft. X 21 ft. ), out of Khasra no. 141/12 situated in the revenue estate of Village Jharoda Kalan abadi known as Baba Haridas Enclave, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi (hereinafter referrred to as 'suit property') from one Smt. Anita Rani for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,25,000/ vide GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipts, will, possession letter all dated 18.06.2013. However, according to the plaintiff, when she started repairing the suit property, defendant no. 2 came to the suit property alongwith police officials and claimed that the suit property belongs to his motherinlaw i.e. defendant no. 1. Both the defendants threatened the plaintiff that they will forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and as such complaint was lodged by the plaintiff with PS Baba Haridass Nagar vide DD entry no. 33 B dated 22.07.2014. According to the plaintiff, the police has failed to take any action against the defendant and as such the plaintiff has got no remedy otherwise CS No. 257/14 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Saroj & Anr.
Order dated 05.03.2015 Page no. 2 of 8 than by filing the present suit for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the uninterrupted enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit property and from stopping the plaintiff from constructing, repairing any structure and making any alternation in the suit property and also from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. Alongwith the plaint, the present application was moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from causing disturbances in uninterrupted enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and also from stopping the plaintiff from constructing the suit property and making any alteration and forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.
3. Summons of the suit alongwith notice of the aforesaid application were duly served upon the defendant on 12.12.2014. Subsequently, written statement alongwith reply to the CS No. 257/14 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Saroj & Anr.
Order dated 05.03.2015 Page no. 3 of 8 application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the same was filed on behalf of the defendant on 27.01.2015. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement was allowed by this court vide order dated 27.01.2015 and the written statement of defendant nos. 1 & 2 was taken on record. It is the case of the defendants as per written statement that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is an abuse of process of law in as much as under the garb of present suit, the plaintiff is trying to grab the property of defendant no. 1. According to the defendants, the defendant no. 1 is the absolute owner of the suit property which has been purchased by her from said Smt. Anita Rani vide GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, possession letter and receipt of Rs. 4,50,000/ all dated 18.02.2012. Subsequently, according to the defendants, said Smt. Anita sought permission from defendant no. 1 to stay into the suit property as a tenant of defendant no. 1. The said request was acceded to by defendant no. 1 since the CS No. 257/14 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Saroj & Anr.
Order dated 05.03.2015 Page no. 4 of 8 soninlaw of Smt. Anita was a good friend of defendant no. 2. According to the defendants, defendant no. 2 used to collect the rent of Rs. 2000/ per month from Smt. Anita, however, subsequently said Smt. Anita played fraud by conspiring with Balwan and plaintiff and had taken away all the original title documents in respect of the suit property from the defendant no. 1 under the pretext that she will help the defendant no. 1 in disposing of the suit property. According to defendants, Anita had executed false and fabricated property documents in favour of the plaintiff despite the fact that she had no title or interest in the suit property and a complaint in this regard has already been lodged by the defendants vide DD no. 32B dated 22.07.2014 whereupon an FIR no. 769/14 under Section 420 IPC has already been registered at PS Baba Haridass Nagar.
4. No replication to the aforesaid written statement has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
5. Arguments were accordingly heard on behalf of both the parties CS No. 257/14 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Saroj & Anr.
Order dated 05.03.2015 Page no. 5 of 8 on the present application. It is submitted by the counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff has been able to prove the prima facie case in his favour for grant of injunction prayed for by the plaintiff in the plaint. He submits that admittedly the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. He has relied upon the electricity bills dated 05.07.2014 and 06.11.2014 in respect of the suit property alongwith entire chain of title documents in respect of the suit property which are in the name of the plaintiff. In any case, according to him, even as per the case of the defendants, the defendants are not in possession of the suit property in as much as allegedly the possession has always been with Smt. Anita. He submits that though the defendants have taken a stand that Smt. Anita was residing in the suit property as a tenant of defendant no. 1, however, according to him, the defendants had failed to place on record any rent agreement or any other document in support of their aforesaid submission. According to the plaintiff, his case is that the possession of the CS No. 257/14 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Saroj & Anr.
Order dated 05.03.2015 Page no. 6 of 8 suit property has been handed over to him by said Smt. Anita and as such plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and is entitled to protect the same against any unlawful interference by the defendants.
6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the defendants that the electricity connection in the suit property has been obtained by the plaintiff after the defendants have lodged a complaint with the police merely in order to create evidence of their possession over the suit property. However, it is admitted by him that at present defendants are not in possession of the suit property.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, in my considered opinion, the court is not required to adjudicate upon the issue as to who is the owner of the suit property in as much as this is a simplicitor suit for injunction on the basis of possession. Prima facie the plaintiff has been able to prove her possession over the suit property whereas admittedly defendants are not in possession of the same. The plaintiff is accordingly entitled to protect her CS No. 257/14 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Saroj & Anr.
Order dated 05.03.2015 Page no. 7 of 8 possession against any unlawful interference by anybody including the defendants. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff in as much as if the injunction prayed for by the plaintiff is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, he will suffer irreparable loss which can't be compensated in monetary terms.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, defendants are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property during the pendency of the present suit. Application of plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is accordingly disposed off.
9. Needless to observe that nothing expressed herein shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
10. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court on this 05th day of March, 2015 This order consists of eight signed pages.
(Arun Kumar Garg) Civil Judge(SW)/Dwarka Courts New Delhi/05.03.2015 (akn) CS No. 257/14 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Saroj & Anr.
Order dated 05.03.2015 Page no. 8 of 8