Delhi District Court
M/S Jagtarni Hoimes Pvt Ltd vs Ranaji Ganguly on 28 November, 2023
DLSE010008782020
Presented on : 31-01-2020
Registered on : 01-02-2020
Decided on : 28-11-2023
Duration : 3 years, 9 months, 28 days
Date of Institution : 01.02.2020
Date reserved for judgement : 16.11.2023
Date of announcement of judgement : 28.11.2023
Decision : Decreed
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MUNISH MARKAN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ADJ02) SOUTH EAST,
DISTRICT COURTS, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CSDJ 111/2020
M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD.
Through its Director
Mr. Nayan Singh
Having its registered office at
H1537, Second Floor,
Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi - 110019 .... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mr. RANAJI GANGULY
S/o Late Sh.K. K. Ganguly
At Ground Floor, J1953,
Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi - 110019 .... Defendant
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff company for possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground of having purchased the suit property CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 1/20 from the erstwhile owners by way of registered sale deed dated 27.11.2019, the defendant opposed the same primarily on the ground of under valuation, fraud and asserted his ownership on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell stated to be executed between the same erstwhile owners and the defendant, and also on the ground of non joinder of the erstwhile owner.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property bearing no. J1953, Ground Floor and Basement, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi110019 measuring 340 sq. yards was owned by Ms. Kalyani Gersape & Ms. Karobi Wade. Plaintiff purchased the suit property from both of them vide Sale Deed dated 27.11.2019 duly registered on 29.11.2019. The said Sale Deed also notes that defendant is the trespasser in the suit property. The previous owners handed over the symbolic and legal possession of the suit property to the plaintiff company and was given the right to recover the claim possession and mesne profits for the previous as well as future periods. The suit property can fetch rent @ Rs.1.5 Lakhs per month. Plaintiff served legal notice dated 21.12.2019 on the defendant seeking the possession and damages but to no avail. Defendant also approached the plaintiff through its Director but to no avail. Hence, the present suit, wherein, the plaintiff sought possession and mesne profits @ Rs.1.5 Lakhs per month w.e.f. 01.01.2016 along with interest @15% per annum and also sought injunction to restrain defendant not to create any third party interest in the suit property.
CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 2/20 WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. Defendant took the plea that suit is under value as the suit property has value of more than Rs.2 Crores and even the sale deed mentions the sale consideration as Rs.2,36,07,000/. Sale Deed is not clear about the vendor and vendee.
4. Defendant further stated that he financed the construction of the suit property and there is a pre existing agreement to sell between vendor and defendant. Defendant is in possession of the suit property. The suit is barred on account of non joinder of necessary parties Ms. Kalyani Gersape & Ms. Karobi Wade. Sh. Surender Sehlot and Sh. Nayan Singh are also not impleaded as they are the Peon/ Office boy of defendant company and cannot be treated as bonafide purchaser. The sale deed does not clarify the description of the property. The suit has been filed on the basis of forged and fabricated Sale Deed.
5. Defendant further admitted that Ms. Kalyani Gersape & Ms. Karobi Wade were the owners of the suit property but later on, defendant became the owner of the ground floor and basement as well as the third floor and the terrace of the suit property. The earlier owners had no right, title or interest to sell the suit property and defendant is in occupation of the suit property as an owner. The defendant also issued public notice dated 01.01.2020 and filed the complaint with EOW Cell and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. Plaintiff filed the replication refuting the stand taken CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 3/20 by the defendant in the written statement and reiterated the case as made in the plaint.
7. Plaintiff further stated that Rs.2.36 Crores is the value of the sale deed for the purposes of stamp duty at circle rates but the market value is Rs.1.5 crores.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the present suit is under valued for the purpose of ad-valorum court fees? OPD
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as sale deed in question has been obtained through fraudulent means? OPD
3. Whether the sale deed in question is defective and void-ab-initio? OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of parties i.e. Ms. Kalyani and Mrs. Karobi? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of suit property being entire basement and entire ground floor constructed on plot of land bearing municipal No.J-1953, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi measuring about 340 sqr. Yards (in terms of prayer clause a) OPP 5A. Whether the agreement to sell dated 15th September 2011 and the Power of Attorney dated 15th November 2010 confer any ownership or title in CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 4/20 respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant? OPD
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree in fvaour of plaintiff and against the defendant for payment of mesne profits @ Rs.1.5 Lacs per month w.e.f. 01.01.2016 along with interest @ 15% pa. ? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in the entire basement and entire ground floor of the suit property in question? OPP
8. Relief.
9. During plaintiff evidence plaintiff examined PW-1 Sh.Surender Sehlot tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1. Document Ex.PW-1/1 was de-exhibited.
2. Board Resolution dated 19.09.2020 as Ex.PW-1/2.
3. Board Resolution dated 11.01.2021 as Ex.PW-1/3.
4. Board Resolution dated 08.10.2022 as Ex.PW-1/4.
5. Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 27.11.2019 as Ex.PW-1/5.
6. Office copy of notice dated 21.12.2019 as Ex.PW-1/6.
7. Postal receipts are exhibited as Ex.PW-1/7 & Ex.PW-
1/8.
8. Postal tracking reports are exhibited as Ex.PW-1/9 and Ex.PW-1/10.
CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 5/20
9. Certified copy of the Lease Deed dated 29.09.2022 as Ex.PW-1/11.
10. Notice dated 28.12.2019 along with envelop as Ex.PW-1/12.
11. Board Resolution dated 22.01.2020 as Ex.PW-1/13.
10. During defendant evidence, defendant examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.DW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1. Mark DW-1/1 as copy of resignation letter.
2. Mark DW-1/1A as copy of confirmation letter.
3. Ex.DW-1/2 (colly) as certified copy of the complaint u/s 200 Cr. P.C. along with documents.
4. Mark DW-1/3 as copy of record from official website of MCA with certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
5. Mark DW-1/4 as copy of GPA dated 17.09.2010.
6. Mark DW-1/5 as copy ofGPA dated 22.09.2010.
7. Mark DW-1/6 as copy of GPA dated 15.11.2010.
8. Mark DW-1/6A as copy of the seizure report dated 22.08.2022.
9. Mark DW-1/7 as copy of record from website DORIS.
10. Mark DW-1/8 (colly) as copy of receipts with regard to Relinquishment Deed dated 24.11.2019
11. Mark DW-1/9 as copy of the perpetual Lease Deed dated 20.05.19976.
12. Mark DW-1/10 as copy of registration page.
13. Mark DW-1/11 as copy of the Permission Letter for CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 6/20 construction.
14. Mark DW-1/12 as copy of the Sanction Letter.
15. Mark DW-1/13 as copy of the Form D and Completion Certificate.
16. Ex.DW-1/14 as copy of Death Certificate of Late Dr. Mrs. Era Gangopadhyay.
17. Ex.DW-1/15 as copy of Will of Late Dr. Mrs. Era Gangopadhyay.
18. Ex.DW-1/16 as copy of Substitution Letter dated 29.06.1983.
19. Ex.DW-1/17 as Copy of Mutation Letter from MCD.
20. Ex.DW-1/18 as copy of Conveyance Deed.
21. Mark DW-1/19 as copy of ROC website Master Data.
22. Mark DW-1/20 as copy of Collaboration Agreement.
23. Mark DW-1/21 as copy of print out of ROC website Master Data.
24. Mark DW-1/22 as copy of ROC records available with the MCA website showing shareholding.
25. Mark DW-1/23 as copy of certificate No.112/CC/B/CZ/2012 dated 11.09.2012 issued on 24.01.2013.
26. Mark DW-1/24 as copy of Contract executed byKarobi Wade with Laxman Dass & Sons Contactor.
27. Mark DW-1/25 as copy of Sanctioned letter dated 02.11.2011.
28. Mark DW-1/26 as copy of Agreement to sell dated 15.09.2011.
CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 7/20
29. Mark DW-1/26A as copy of second Agreement to Sell dated 15.09.2011.
30. Mark DW-1/27 as copy of order of Ld. ACMM order to EOW dated 16.10.2020 for registration of FIR.
31. Mark DW-1/28 as copy of FIR No.0155/2020 dated 08.10.2020.
32. Mark DW-1/29 as copy of Seizure Memo issued from EOW, Delhi.
33. Mark DW-1/30 as copy of E-mail trial of exchange Kalyani Gersappe, Karobi Wade along with copy of certificate u/s 65B of IT Act.
34. Mark DW-1/31 as copy of report of Forensic Exper.
35. Mark DW-1/32 as copy of the application, load sanction, security deposit receipt for the electricity connection in Ranaji Ganguly's name dated December 2012.
36. Mark DW-1/33 as copy of application for name change made to BSES.
37. Mark DW-1/34 as copy of three BSES Bills received in the name of the plaintiff company.
38. Mark DW-1/35 as copy of unauthorized construction sealing notice MCD No.164/B/UC/CZ/12 dated 15.06.2012.
39. Mark DW-1/36 a copy of legal notice dated 16.09.2020 sent to Kalyani Gersappe and Karobi Wade.
40. Mark DW-1/37 as copy of notice published in Indian Express Newspaper on 23.09.2020.
CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 8/20
11. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record carefully. Issue wise findings of the court as under:
Issue no.1 :
Whether the present suit is under valued for the purpose of advalorum court fees? OPD
12. The plaintiff has filed the suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction. The plaintiff has valued the suit for possession at Rs.1.5 lakhs i.e. the sale consideration which the plaintiff has claimed to have paid to the owners of the suit property and plaintiff has also claimed the mesne profits @ Rs.1.5 lakhs per month w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and valued the same at Rs.1.5 lakhs and the relief of permanent injunction has been valued at Rs.200 on which appropriate court fees has been paid.
13. Ld. Counsel for defendant had argued that the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 dated 27.11.2019 mentions valuation of the suit property as per circle rates as Rs.2,36,07,000/ and therefore argued that suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of jurisdiction and this court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had argued that sale consideration was Rs.1.5 crores and therefore the valuation has been done as per sale consideration.
15. So far as the relief of possession is concerned, it is governed under section 7 (v)(e) which provides that in case of possession of a house, the suit has to be valued as per the market CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 9/20 value of the house. The circle rates are the guidelines for the purposes of the revenue authorities to be followed by the Collector and lay down the specified limits for protecting any loss of revenue to the Exchequer on account of evasion of stamp duty. The market value of a property can always be more than or less than the circle rates. The fact that the sale deed was for a consideration of Rs.1.5 crores itself indicates that the market value of the suit property was less than the circle rates. The computation of the value as per circle rates in the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 was for determination of the stamp duty and cannot be used as a criterion for the valuation of the suit for possession when the sale deed itself indicates a different market value. In my considered opinion, suit has been properly valued for the relief of possession at Rs.1.5 Crores.
16. However, so far as the mesne profits is concerned, the suit was filed on 01.02.2020 and the liability of the plaintiff to pay the deficient court fees is dependant upon mesne profits being awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed for the mesne profits w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and the suit was filed on 01.02.2020. The plaintiff was required to value the relief of mesne profits minimum for three years prior to the filing of the suit i.e. Rs.1.5 Lakhs x 12x3 and had to pay the court fees accordingly and in this regard there is deficiency in the valuation and payment of the court fees which the plaintiff is liable to pay. However, even by correcting the valuation, it is still within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, this issue is CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 10/20 decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue no.4 :
Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of the party i.e. Ms. Kalyani Gersape & Ms. Karobi Wade ? OPD.
17. The plaintiff has filed the suit for possession on the basis of registered sale deed dated 27.11.2019 Ex.PW1/5 executed by Ms. Kalyani Gersape through her general attorney Ms. Karobi Wade, alongwith Ms. Karobi Wade, both as the joint owners of the suit property. The sale deed being executed in favour of the plaintiff company, the defendant claimed to be in possession of the suit property and having entered into the suit property on account of having executed unregistered agreement to sell dated 15.09.2011 Ex.DW1/26 by the 2 sisters Ms. Kalyani Gersape & Ms. Karobi Wade in favour of the defendant alongwith 2 GPAs dated 22.09.2010 Mark DW1/5 and GPA dated 15.11.2010 Mark DW1/6 executed by Ms. Karobi Wade and Ms. Kalyani Gersape respectively in favour of the defendant.
18. Defendant has claimed his rights in the suit property on the basis of documents executed by Ms. Kalyani Gersape & Ms. Karobi Wade in his favour at earlier point of time i.e. in the year 2010 and 2011. The plaintiff has sought the possession of the suit property on the registered sale deed Ex.PW1/5 executed by Ms. Kalyani Gersape & Ms. Karobi Wade in favour of the plaintiff. It being the case, there is no requirement for impleading Ms. Kalyani Gersape & Ms. Karobi Wade as a party CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 11/20 to the suit, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has disputed the sale deeds to have obtained through fraudulent means and claimed to be fabricated. It is worthwhile to note that there is no suit for declaration/ counter claim filed by the defendant qua the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 dated 27.11.2019 as null and void.
19. In view of the same, there was no requirement to implead the 2 erstwhile owners of the suit property as party for the proper and effective adjudication of the matter. Plaintiff has sought the possession of the suit property on the basis of having purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed Ex.PW1/5.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.2 & 3Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as sale deed in question has been obtained through fraudulent means? OPD Whether the sale deed in question is defective and voidabinitio? OPD
20. Ex.PW1/5 is the certified copy of the registered Sale Deed dated 27.11.2019 duly registered on 29.11.2019. Ld. Counsel for defendant had argued that a registered Deed merely create a presumption of title in favour of the buyer. However, it is a rebuttable l presumption and can be challenged on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. He argued that if the information provided in the Sale Deed is proved to be false, the CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 12/20 registration of the Sale Deed may be cancelled. He has relied upon the judgments in support of his contentions viz Achuthan Pillai Vs. Marikar (Motors) Ltd.; AIR 9183 Ker 81, Vimal Chand Vs. Ghevarchand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo (2009) 5 SCC 713, KunwarSurendra Bahadur Sigh Vs. Thakur Behari Singh ; AIR 1939 PC 117, Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (2003) 8 SCC 745, Baldeo Sahai Vs. Ram Chander; AIR 1931 Lahore 546, Rakesh Mohindra Vs. Anita Beri; (2015) AIR (SCW) 6271, Inder Singh Vs. Rahbir Singh, AIR 1978 P& H 98, Shiv Ram Vs. Shiv Charan Singh, AIR 1964 Raj 126, Iswar Bhai C. Patel Vs. HariharBehera, (1999) 3 SCC 457, Turner Vs. Moon, (1901) 2 Ch 825, Thammi Neni Vs. Dhavala Poli Naidu, AIR 1954 Mad 205, Gajapathi Vs. Alagia, 1886 ILR 9 Mad 89, Cook Vs. Taylor, (1942) 2 All ER 85. Perused the same.
21. Ld. Counsel for defendant further argued that Sale Deed Ex.PW1/5 was registered by virtue of GPA that was not in existence. He argued that the GPA dated 17.09.2010 Mark DW 1/4 executed by Kalyani Gersape in favour of Karobi Wade to register the Sale Deed but the said GPA dated 17.09.2010 along with other documents of the suit property i.e. Conveyance Deed, Lease Deed etc. were lost by Karobi Wade on 04.09.2018 regarding which, an EFIR was got registered on 06.09.2018.
22. The defendant himself has placed on record the copy of the GPA dated 17.09.2010 Mark DW1/4 executed by Kalyani CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 13/20 Gersape in favour of Karobe Wade. The defendant cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. The defendant himself filing a document cannot take a somersault and take a plea contrary to the said document.
23. Not only that, the defendant has also placed on record the copy of the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 15.02.2019 executed by Ms.Kalyani Gersape in favour of Karobi Wade in respect of the suit property. For reasons best known to the defendant, the defendant had not exhibited the said Relinquishment Deed. Once the defendant himself is placing on record the Relinquishment Deed dated 15.02.2019, he cannot be permitted to take a plea contrary to the said document. The Ex.PW1/5 i.e. the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff executed by the two sisters cannot be discarded because of non production of the GPA dated 17.09.2010 by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plea of the defendants that the GPA was not in existence when the Sale Deed was registered is without any merit.
24. Further, the plaintiff not being in possession of the previous chain of documents, is not of any consequence as it is an admitted case of both the parties that Ms.Kalyani Gersape and Karobi Wade the two daughters of Dr.Mrs.Era Gangopadhyay who was the owner of the suit property. The claim of the defendant that he had purchased the suit property from the two sisters i.e. the erstwhile owner by virtue of Agreement to Sell dated 15.09.2011 Mark PW1/26 and the two GPA Mark DW1/5 CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 14/20 dated 22.09.2010 and Mark DW1/6 dated 15.11.2010 itself substantiate the stand of the defendant that Ms.Kalyani Gersape and Karobi Wade were the owners of the suit property. Further, the stand of the defendant is that the suit premises is not as claimed in the Sale Deed is not the actual status. This plea is also baseless as LC was appointed who had visited the basement of the suit property as well as ground floor. The mention of the ground floor as upper floor on account of stilt parking is not of no consequence as now a days, it is mandatory to make stilt parking.
25. Besides, there is no confusion between both the parties regarding as to the identity and description of the suit property. This plea is frivolous. In my considered opinion, the defendant has failed to show that there is any legal defect in the said registered Sale Deed Ex.PW1/5.
26. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had also argued that even if there was a defect in the Sale Deed Ex.PW1/5 and even if there is a fraud committed regarding the execution of the said Sale Deed, he argued that the Sale Deed was voidable only at the option of a person who had been defrauded. He argued that plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Ms.Kalyani Gersape and Karobi Wade. The defendant having acquired no interest in the suit property cannot take this plea regarding the defects, mistake or misrepresentation. He argued that plaintiff had no contract or agreement with the defendant who is an unauthorized occupant in the suit property.
CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 15/20
27. He further argued that defendant had not filed any suit for specific performance in respect of unregistered Agreement to Sell dated 15.09.2011 Ex.DW1/26 and has no right to challenge the Sale Deed.
28. I find merit in the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Even if, there is any fraud, mistake or misrepresentation, the only aggrieved party can be said to be Ms.Karobi Wade and Ms.Kalyani Gersape and there is no locus of the defendant to even challenge the said Sale Deed as the defendant himself has not acquired any right, title or interest in the suit property by virtue of unregistered Agreement to Sell Ex.DW1/26 and GPAs Mark DW1/5 and Mark DW1/6. Therefore, both these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.5 & 5A Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of suit property being entire basement and entire ground floor constructed on plot of land bearing municipal No.J-1953, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi measuring about 340 sqr. Yards (in terms of prayer clause a) OPP 5A. Whether the agreement to sell dated 15th September 2011 and the Power of Attorney dated 15th November 2010 confer any ownership or title in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant? OPD
29. In addition to the findings given above, since the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from its erstwhile CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 16/20 owners by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 27.11.2019 Ex.PW1/5, the defendants have failed to prove as to what right, title or interest he has in the suit property. Defendant cannot protect his possession u/s 53(A) of The Transfer of Property Act as the Agreement to Sell dated 15.09.2011 is unregistered one and the defendant apparently has also lost his right to claim to file the suit for specific performance apparently on account of limitation.
30. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit property i.e. entire basement and the ground floor of the property no.J1953, C. R. Park, New Delhi. These issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE No.6 Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree in fvaour of plaintiff and against the defendant for payment of mesne profits @ Rs.1.5 Lacs per month w.e.f. 01.01.2016 along with interest @ 15% pa. ? OPP
31. The plaintiff has claimed the mesne profits @ Rs.1.5 Lakhs per month w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Plaintiff in support of his case has placed on record certified copy of Lease Agreement Ex.PW1/11 in respect of ground floor adjoining property J 1881, C. R. Park, New Delhi which was given on rent by its landlord at monthly rent ofRs.75,000/ per month in respect of ground floor. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the suit property is in the neighbourhood of property No.J1881. Being CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 17/20 the ground floor and the basement, both can collectively fetch rent of Rs.1.5 Lakhs per month.
32. The rental value of a property is dependent on number of factors including the location and direction of the property, the quality of construction, the manner of construction and other factors. However, so far as the present case is concerned, the suit property is built up on area of 340 sqr. Yards in C. R. Park, New Delhi and its basement as well as the ground floor can easily fetch minimum rent of Rs.1 Lakh per month which the plaintiff is entitled to for the period of three years immediately prior to the filing of the suit. The suit was filed on 01.02.2020. Clause 2 of the registered Sale Deed Ex.PW1/5 specifically entitle the vendee to the recovery of damages/ mesne profits for the previous period for the unauthorized occupation of the suit property.
33. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to use and occupation charges @ Rs.1 Lakh per month w.e.f. February 2017 till February 2020 and is also entitled to pendentelite and future use and occupation charges @ Rs.1 Lakh per month. Plaintiff is also held entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 6% p.a. on the cumulated arrears as on the date of filing of the suit and is also held entitled to future interest on the whole of the decreetal amount as arrived at on the date of decree along with costs of the suit.
CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 18/20 ISSUE No.7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in the entire basement and entire ground floor of the suit property in question? OPP
34. In view of the findings given above, plaintiff is held entitled to permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. RELIEF:
35. In view of the findings given in the above issues, suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant and plaintiff is held entitled to possession of the suit property bearing No. J 1953, Ground Floor and Basement, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi110019 measuring 340 sq. yards as per Sale Deed Ex.PW1/5.
36. The plaintiff is also entitled to use and occupation charges @ Rs.1 Lakh per month w.e.f. February 2017 till February 2020 and is also entitled to pendentelite and future use and occupation charges @ Rs.1 Lakh per month. Plaintiff is also held entitled to pendentelite interest @ 6% p.a. on the cumulated arrears as on the date of filing of the suit and is also held entitled to future interest @ 6% p.a. on the whole of the decreetal amount as arrived at on the date of decree along with costs of the suit.
CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 19/20
37. Plaintiff is held entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant and defendant is restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property. Decree sheet be prepared subject to filing of deficient court fees by the plaintiff on the mesne profits awarded.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced and dictated in the open court on 28.11.2023 (Munish Markan) Additional District Judge02 (SED) District Courts Saket, New Delhi ks/pk Digitally signed by MUNISH MUNISH MARKAN MARKAN Date:
2023.12.01 18:50:14 +0530 CSDJ 111/2020 M/s. JAGTARNI HOMES PVT. LTD. Vs. RANAJI GANGULY 20/20