Delhi District Court
Smt. Meena vs Smt. Bimla on 16 January, 2010
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE13: CENTRAL DISTRICT: DELHI
Suit No. 37/2004
Smt. Meena
Wife of Sh. Om Prakash,
753/22 Krishan Nagar, Sonipat,
Haryana
.........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Bimla
W/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o 91/9 Krishangarh, Mehrauli,
New Delhi110030.
2. Smt. Sarla,
W/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Kadiyan,
R/o 82/4 Mehrauli,
New Delhi110030
3. Smt. Dharmo,
W/o Master Manphool,
R/o Village Chhara, Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar, Haryana.
4. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
1
I.N.A. Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi
.........Defendants
Date of Institution: 10.7.2000
Arguments heard on: 4.1.2010
Date of Decision: 16.1.2010
: J U D G M E N T :
This suit for partition, possession and permanent
injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against the
defendants seeking partition of the land/ property bearing No.
RX11129 measuring 2075 sq. yards forming part of Khasra
No. 2947/2730/1674 (New Khasra No. 1212) situated in
village Kishangarh, Thesil Mehrauli and separating the share
of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/4th share by meets and
bounds. She is further seeking a restrain over the defendants
no. 1 to 3, their attorneys, representatives, assignees etc. from
2
selling, transferring or parting with possession or making any
encumbrances as well as carrying out any constructions,
additions, alterations or structural changes in the said land/
property without effecting partition of the share of the
plaintiff and putting/ placing the plaintiff in vacant and
peaceful possession of the same.
Briefly the facts relevant to the disposal of the
same are as under:
BRIEF FACTS:
Plaintiff Case:
The case of the plaintiff is that she and the defendants no. 1 to 3 are real sisters and daughters of late Sh. Chuttan Lal and Smt. Chotti Devi who was the owner of land/property bearing No. RZ111279 measuring 2075 sq. yds. situated in village Kishangarh, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi forming part of Khasra No. 2947/2730/1674 (New 3 Khasra No. 1212) in village Kishangarh, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is pleaded that in February, 1992 a dispute arose between Smt. Chhoti Devi with Delhi Development Authority defendant No.4 pursuant to which she filed a suit for permanent injunction against Delhi Development Authority, its employees, servants, agents, etc. from dispossessing her as well as interfering in her possession and enjoyment of the said property which was shown in red colour in the site plan which suit is still pending. It is further stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid case Smt. Chhoti Devi expired on 20.01.97 and an application under Order XXII Rule 3 read with section 151 C.P.C was filed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 for substitution of their names since after the death of Smt. Chotti Devi it is the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 3 being her natural heirs and legal representatives inherited the aforesaid property and because 4 the joint owner of the same on account of the fact that cause of action and right to sue survives on the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 being the only legal heirs. According to the plaintiff, Sh. Chuttan Lal husband of Smt. Chhoti Devi and father of plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 3 predeceased Smt. Chhoti Devi on 18.10.1986 and there has not been any son born to Smt. Chotti Devi and the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are their only legal heirs. The said application was allowed by the Court vide orders dated 21.08.1997.
It is pleaded that the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 3 being the joint owners of the said property and having 1/4th undivided share in the property in question and after death of Smt. Chotti Devi the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are in joint possession of the same as Smt. Chotti Devi was in possession of the said property uptil her death which fact has also been specifically mentioned in the said suit filed by Smt. 5 Chotti Devi against DDA and the possession of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 has also been continuing after death of Smt. Chotti Devi. It is stated that the possession of the said land/property jointly occupy with defendants No.1 and 3 therefore, the plaintiff on 25.06.2000 requested the defendants no.1 to 3 to effect the partition of the said land/property by meets and bound and separate 1/4th undivided share of the plaintiff out of said 2075 sq. yds. of land/property which comes to 5181/2 sq. yds. (five hundred eighteen and half) but the defendants no.1 to 3 had refused to effect partition of the same by meets and bounds and under such circumstances the plaintiff is left with no other alternative but to file the present suit for effecting partition of the same by meets and bounds as well as to separate the share of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the defendants no.1 to 3 on 25.06.2000 itself threatened the plaintiff that they will not partitioned the land/ 6 property and are having the intentions to sell and transfer whole of the property to third person/persons and would also hand over the possession of the same which action on the part of defendants no.1 to 3 has altogether been illegal, unlawful and malafide and they have no right either to sell whole of the property or part with possession of the same or create any encumbrances in respect of undivided 1/4th undivided share of the plaintiff and in fact the defendants no.1 to 3 are required to be restrained from selling, transferring or parting with the possession of the land/property as well as creating any encumbrances on the same. It is stated that the defendants are also required to be restrained from raising any construction, addition, alteration or changes in the said land/property without partition of 1/4th undivided share of the plaintiff in the said land/property. According to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 3 are already litigating with 7 DDA defendant no.4 and the defendant No.4 has been been impleaded as proforma defendant.
Defendant's Case:
In her written statement the defendant no.1 has raised a preliminary objection that the suit for partition, possession and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff is baseless and frivolous by suppressing and concealing the material facts. It is stated that the plaintiff has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and the suit is not maintainable due to the reason that the requisite / proper court fee has not been paid as per the provisions of law. It is further stated that present suit is not maintainable and in fact the plaintiff never asked the defendants for partition of the property in question and the defendant never threatened to sell, transfer and part with the possession of the same to 3rd person or persons. It is stated that the plaintiff never 8 approached defendant regarding the partition of the said property and no question of threatening the plaintiff was ever arose. According to the defendant no.1 the present suit is not maintainable since the plaintiff herself admitted her ownership in respect of the property in question. According to the defendant no.1 out of the total suit land which was initially measuring 2075 sq. yards about 150 sq. yards of land falling in Khasra no. 1674 was sold by Smt. Chhoti Devi to a third party and the sale proceeds of the same was deposited in bank account no. 20 of SBI Bank, Mehrauli, New Delhi which amount was illegally withdrawn by the plaintiff thereby committed misappropriation and breach of trust and embezzled the said amount. It is alleged that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no. 2 and 3 and the defendant no.1 was the sole caretaker of the suit property before the demise of Smt. Chhoti Devi, the erstwhile 9 owner of the suit property who had given her irrevocable General Power of Attorney duly registered in her favour and now the defendant no.1 is the sole owner of the suit property on account of a Registered Will made by Smt. Chotti Devi in which Smt. Chotti Devi had bequeathed the said suit property in favour of the defendant no.1.
On merits, the defendant no.1 has pleaded that the plaintiff has deliberately concealed and suppressed the fact that out of 2075 Sq. Yds. of the said land/property about 150 sq. yds. was already sold by Smt. Chotti Devi during her life time to a 3rd person/party and the measurement of the suit property/land shown by the plaintiff is erroneous and false. It is stated that the defendant no.1 is an illiterate, uneducated lady and the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 and 3 in collusion got certain blank papers and Vakalatnama signed by her while her husband was away. An application/complaint 10 regarding foul play by such connivance has been given to the SHO vide complaint dated 13.04.97 and a copy of the said complaint has also been sent to the Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, New Delhi and also to the D.C.P., West Distt. HQ, Delhi on 15.04.1997. It is also stated that the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no.2 and 3 had tried to mislead the court. It is pleaded that the defendant no.1 is in possession of the suit property and is also having electricity connection sanctioned by D.V.B and also a telephone connection vide consumer no. 2032125174 sanctioned by MTNL in her name.
The defendants no. 2 and 3 have also filed their written statement wherein it is stated that after the death of Sh. Chuttan Lal it is Smt. Chotti Devi alongwith the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 who became the joint owners of the said land/property and were having 1/5th undivided share in 11 the same. Sh. Chuttan Lal in fact expired on 18.10.1986 and Smt. Chhoti Devi was only one of the coowner of the suit property, who also expired on 20.01.1997 therefore, her undivided share in the said land/property has devolved upon her legal heirs i.e. the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 in equal share and therefore, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 are owners of 1/4th undivided share in the said land/property. According to the defendants, the defendant no.1 has been carrying out additions, alterations and structural changes thereby causing disobedience and contempt of the injunction order passed by this court. It is stated that Smt. Chotti Devi never executed any Deed of Relinquishment nor even after death of Smt. Chotti Devi any Deed of Relinquishment was ever executed by the defendants no. 2 and 3 and therefore, they continued to remain as the co owners of the said property and after death of Smt. Chhoti 12 Devi are having equal rights therein and are also entitled to partition or their shares by meets and bounds.
The defendant no.4 DDA has also filed its written statement wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that the suit is not maintainable as no notice under Section 53B of the DD Act has been given to them and the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. It is further stated that the suit is not maintainable under Order II rule 2 CPC since the plaintiff herself stated that a suit was filed in February 1992 which is still pending and the plaintiff had the opportunity to claim the relief of the present suit in the earlier suit also. It is stated that the land underneath the property in question is owned by the DDA/government and the plaintiff wants to grab the present suit land by filing this false and frivolous litigation. It is further stated that the land underneath the property in question falls in Kh. No. 13 2947/2730/1674 min in the revenue estate of Mehrauli, New Delhi and this was given to the DDA vide notification No. S.O. No. 2190 dated 20.08.1974. It is also pleaded that the land in question was Gaon Sabha land and the said land has been placed at the disposal of DDA/answering defendant No.4 through the Notification No. S.O. 2190 dated 20.08.1974 and the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3 are encroachers over the government land.
On merits, the defendant no.4 DDA has stated that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. Smt. Bimla and other have no right, title and interest over the land in question and the encroachers are liable to be removed from the land in question.
ISSUES FRAMED:
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 17.9.2004 the Ld. Predecessor of this court had 14 framed the following issues:
1. Whether Smt. Chhoti, mother of the parties, had sold 150 sq. yards out of the suit property, if so, its effect?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the partition of the property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
EVIDENCE:
In order to prove her case the plaintiff Smt. Meena has examined herself as her sole witness as PW1 and in her examination in chief by way of affidavit she has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the main plaint. She has placed on record copy of the site plan which is Ex.PW1/1; copy of the earlier plaint filed by Smt. Chhoti Devi which is 15 Ex.PW1/2; certified copy of the application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC filed by the plaintiff and the defendants no.1 to 3 which is Ex.PW1/3 and the certified copy of the affidavit of Smt. Bimla Khatri which is Ex.PW1/4.
It is apparent from the record that the defendants no.1 to 3 have not examined any witness. Rather Sh. N. Prabhakar Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1 has made a statement on 11.4.2008 that since the suit land has already been taken over by the DDA there is no subsisting cause of action for the plaintiff to pursue any further against the defendant no.1. Sh. Naveen Dalal advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant no.2 and 3 has also made a statement that the defendants do not wish to examine any witness.
The defendant no.4 DDA has examined one Ram Mahesh Patwari as their sole witness as D4W1, who has in his 16 examination in chief by way of affidavit, corroborated what has been earlier stated in the written statement. He has placed on record the notification under Section 507 (a) of the DMC Act dated 3.6.1966 which is Ex.D4W1/1; copy of S.O. 2190 dated 20.8.1970 under Section 22 (i) of the DD Act which is Ex.D4W1/2 and the Khatauni Paimiash for the year 198081 of Village Mehrauli in respect of Khasra No. in question which is Ex.D4W1/3.
FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the counsels for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue no.1 Whether Smt. Chhoti, mother of the parties, had sold 150 sq. yards out of the 17 suit property, if so, its effect?
The defendant no.1 in her written statement has raised a preliminary objection to the extent that out of the total suit land which was initially 2075 sq. yards, about 150 yards of land falling in Khasra no. 1674 had been sold by Smt. Chhoti Devi, the erstwhile owner to the third party and the sale proceeds of the said land was deposited by her in her bank account no. 20 of State Bank of India, Mehrauli Branch, New Delhi which the plaintiff has illegally withdrawn thereby committed misappropriation, breach of trust and embezzlement. According to her, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no. 2 and 3. This being so the onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant no.1. The defendant no. 2 and 3 have not examined any witness and have closed their evidence as such. The defendant DDA has examined one Ram Mahesh Patwari as 18 their sole witness. The defendant no.1 Bimla has not come to the court to depose and substantiate the grounds raised by her. Rather Sh. N. Prabhakar advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1 made a statement on her instructions on 11.4.2008 that the suit land is no more in possession of the defendant no.1 and has already been taken over by the DDA as a result of which all cause of action against the defendant no.1 has come to an end. This being so, I hereby hold that the defendant no.1 has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations made by her in her written statement with regard to the sale of 150 sq. yards of the property. The present issue appears to have been abandoned by the defendant no.1 and is accordingly disposed off as such.
Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the partition of the property?
Issue no.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for?
19 Both the issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. Onus of proving both the issues was upon the plaintiff. In support of her case, the plaintiff Smt. Meena has examined herself as PW1. In rebuttal the defendant no.1 has not examined any witness and has abandoned the proceedings on the ground that no cause of action is subsisting since possession of the said land has already been taken over by the DDA. The defendant no. 2 and 3 have not lead any evidence. On the other hand the defendant no.4 DDA has examined its Patwari Ram Mahesh as D4W1. PW1 has in her examination in chief by way of affidavit, corroborated what she has earlier stated in the plaint. According to her, Smt. Chhoti Devi mother of the plaintiff and also the mother of the defendant no. 1 to 3 was the owner of property bearing no. RZ111, 2/9 measuring 2075 sq. yards situated in village Kishangarh, Tehsil 20 Mehrauli, New Delhi forming part of Khasra no. 2947/2730/1674 (old), New Khasra No. 1212. She has deposed that a dispute arose between Smt. Chhoti Devi and DDA pursuant to which she had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the DDA (which suit bearing No. 743/1992 was initially filed before the Delhi High Court and later on had been transferred to the court of District Judge and ultimately to this court by the order of Ld. District Judge, Delhi dated 10.7.2009). According to the plaintiff, the possession of the plaintiff and the defendants no. 1 to 3 is a continuous possession after the death of late Smt. Chhoti Devi and now the plaintiff does not wish to continue to occupy and possess the suit land / property jointly with the defendants no. 1 to 3 and has asked for the partition of the property by meets and bounds and of a separate 1/4th undivided share out of 2075 sq. yards which comes of 518½ sq. yards. PW1 has deposed 21 that defendants no. 1 to 3 have threatened her and are having intentions to sell and transfer whole of the property on which they have no right, for which they are required to be restrained. It is also stated that Smt. Chhoti Devi died interstate and never executed any Will in respect of the land/ property in question and the defendant no. 1 seems have to forged and fabricated a Will pursuant to which she filed a Probate petition which is pending the court of Sh. V.K. Gupta, ADJ, Delhi and has been contested by the plaintiff. According to PW1, in the absence of a legal and valid Will the aforesaid property would devolve upon her and the defendant no. 1 to 3 in equal shares.
In her crossexamination, PW1 has stated that she is the owner of 1/4th share alongwith defendants no. 1 to 3. and she has no objection if the shares of defendants no. 2 and 3 from the suit property are also partitioned. This proves that 22 the allegations of collusion of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 and 3 as made by the defendant no.1 are correct and this suit has been filed by the plaintiff Smt. Meena collusively alongwith the defendant no. 2 and 3. The witness PW1 has been crossexamined by the counsel for the defendant no.1 wherein she has admitted that late Smt. Chhoti Devi was the owner of the property and the land belongs to their ancestors. She admits that Smt. Chhoti Devi had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant no.4 DDA. She has also been crossexamined by the counsel for the DDA and has testified that she has not seen the revenue records in respect of the suit property and she does not know the khasra no. of the property. She has denied the suggestion that the property has been shown in the revenue records in favour of Gaon Sabha. She is not able to tell whether the suit property falls in Khasra no. 2947/2730/1674 Min in the revenue estate 23 of village Mehrauli, Delhi and whether the suit property has been placed at the disposal of the DDA by the Central Government vide notification SO 2190 dated 20.8.1974. She has denied the suggestion that she or her sisters have no legal right, title or interest in respect of the suit property. It is only the defendant no.4 DDA who has lead evidence in rebuttal.
They have examined one Ram Mahesh Patwari (LM) SWZ, DDA Vikas Sadan as D4W1 who has specifically deposed that the land in question belong to the Gaon Sabha and had been transferred to the DDA vide notification S.O. No. 2190 dated 20.8.1974 and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest nor any construction/ encroachment can be permitted upon the government land. He has placed on record the notification dated 3.6.1966 issued under Section 507 (a) of the DMC Act which is Ex.D4W1/1 wherein the land in question situated in village Kishan Garh including the 24 land subject matter of the present suit was declared as "Urban Area". He has testified that on issuance of the aforesaid notification the land vested in the Central Government under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and the Central Government became the owner of the said land. He has further deposed that the Central government by notification S.O. No. 2190 dated 20.8.1974 issued under Section 22(1) of the DD Act placed the said land at the disposal of the DDA for purposes of development and maintenance of the land as Green which notification is Ex.D4W1/2. He has also placed on record the Khatauni Paimaish for the year 19801981 of village Mehrauli which is Ex.D4W1/3. According to the witness, the DDA has already taken over the possession of the suit land and is presently lying vacant at the site and well fenced by the DDA. The witness of the defendant has been subjected to a lengthy crossexamination running into as 25 many as 18 pages conducted on two dates which I have considered I have also considered the submissions made before me. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has placed his reliance on the following authorities which I have duly perused:
1. Dayabhai Chaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563.
2. Mahadev Savlaran Sheikh Vs. The Pune Municipal corporation reported in (1995) 3 SCC 33.
3. Bakshi Ram Vs. DDA reported in 1995 (32) DRJ 597.
4. Premji Rattansey Shah & Ors. Vs. JT 1994 (6) SC
585.
5. Rajinder Kakkar Vs. DDA reported in 1994 (I) AD (Delhi) 432.
6. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A. Vishwan reported 26 in AIR 1996 SC 3377.
7. Mohan Lal Vs. Mohan Singh reported in 1995 PLJ Page 48.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jangbir Vs. Mahavir Prashad Gupta reported in 1974 (4) SCC 682 had observed that the provisions of Section 507 (a) and (b) of the DMC Act refer only to "areas" and not to mere Khasra nos. which are convenient divisions for the purposes of indicating what lay within each area. It was further observed by the court that the term "urban area" or "rural area" is used for much larger units than khasra nos. and it is quite possible to think of one particular number, within an "abadi" area, left out or dropped deliberately.
It is, therefore, evident that in view of the notification dated 13.6.1966 which is Ex.D4W1/1 the entire 27 Kishangarh village including all immovable properties belonging to the Gaon Sabha became the property of the Central Government and the land under the occupation of the plaintiff situated in village Kishangarh to which the notification under Section 507 of the DMC Act dated 3.6.1966 applied, thereafter became the property of the Central Government which was later on transferred to the DDA for maintenance as green. Therefore, the notification dated 3.6.1966 having been issued by the government under Section 507 of the DMC Act whereby the entire area of Kishangarh was urbanized, consequentially in terms of the provisions of Section 150 (3) of the DLR Act, the land came to vest under the Central Government vide notification under Section 22 (1) of the DD Act dated 20.8.1974 and on urbanization the entire area was placed at the disposal of the DDA for purposes of development and maintenance of the 28 said land as green and for taking such steps as required to serve the said purpose, subject to the condition that the DDA shall not take or cause or permit to be made any construction on the said land.
Therefore in view of the aforesaid I hereby hold that the entire area of village Kishangarh Mehrauli stood vested in the Central Government under Section 507 of the DMC Act vide notification dated 3.6.1966 which is Ex.D4W1/1 and by necessary implication the land over which Sahara Restaurant is constructed is also covered by the said notification being situated in village Kishangarh. Thereafter, vide notification dated 20.8.1974 which is Ex.D4W1/2 the entire land of village Kishangarh which was earlier taken over by notification Ex.D4W1/1 stood transferred to DDA for maintenance as green with directions that under no circumstances, the DDA can permit or cause to permit any 29 construction over the same. The Delhi High Court in the case of Rajender Kakkar Vs. DDA in Civil Writ petition no. 3355/ 1993 had held that whole of village Kishangarh was urbanized and as per Section 150 of DLR Act the land of whole Gaon Sabha ceases to be rural and the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha in the village Kishangarh vested in the Central Government who vide notification dated 20.8.1974 placed the same at the disposal of the DDA.
It is evident from the record that no revenue record has been placed on record by the plaintiff to substantiate and prove her legal right over the property in question and it is only the witness of the defendant DDA who has placed the documentary record before this court. The plaintiff has failed to prove her legal right, title or interest over the land in respect of which she is claiming partition. During the course of trial the DDA had already initiated 30 demolition action on 21.10.2003, a fact which has been brought on record by the DDA in suit bearing CS No. 118/2009 under the title 'Smt. Chhoti Devi Vs. DDA' when the the superstructures existing over the land in question were subjected to the demolition action and after demolition of the unauthorized construction, the same has been taken over by the DDA on 21.10.2003 and has been duly fenced and are in their possession. Photographs of the site have been placed on record which have been put to the witness of the DDA which photographs are Ex.D4W1/PX1 to Ex.D4W1/PX4 on which the plot in question has been shown at point Mark X and at point Mark Y. It is evident from the said photographs that as on date no superstructure is shown to be existing on the suit land which is now under the fencing and possession of the DDA. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no. 1 has also made a statement on behalf of the defendant no.1 to 31 the effect that the land in question has already been taken over by the DDA and there is no subsisting cause of action for the plaintiff to persue the case further. Merely because the witness of the DDA has not been able to place on record the demarcation report, would not assist the plaintiff in any manner since she herself has failed to discharge the initial onus by placing on record the necessary documents to show her title over the land in question. The legal heir of an encroacher/ trespasser over the public land has no legal right to seek partition over the same, more so when there is no subsisting cause of action and the land in question has been taken over by the DDA and presently in their possession.
In view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of partition and permanent injunction as asked for in the plaint. Both the issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant 32 DDA.
Relief:
In view of my findings with regard to the various issues, I hereby hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of partition and permanent injunction as asked for in the plaint.
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 16.1.2010 Addl. District Judge: Delhi 33 Suit No. 37/2004 Smt. Meena Vs. Smt. Bimla & Ors. 16.1.2010 Present: None for the plaintiff. None for the defendant no.1 to 3.
Sh. K.D. Sharma, counsel for the defendant no.4 DDA.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court but not yet typed, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJ: DELHI/ 16.1.2010 34