Delhi District Court
Judge Code Dl0804 vs Mr. Lawrance Messy on 3 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS.NUPUR GUPTA, CIVIL JUDGEI, NEW DELHI
Judge Code DL0804
C.S. No.56620/16
Unique Case ID No.
Delhi Diocesan Trust Association
1, Church Lane, New Delhi110001 ... Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Lawrance Messy
S/o Sh. Bahadur Messy
R/o Quarter No. 4, 1 Church Lane,
New Delhi110001. ... Defendant
Date of Institution : 01.06.2010
Date of Reserving Judgment : 28.05.2018
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2018
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND RECOVERY
OF DAMAGES AND COMPENSATIONS
JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present suit, the plaintiff has sought a direction to the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the premises bearing no. quarter no.4 situated in the Campus of Bishop's House, 1 Church Lane, New Delhi110001 (hereinafter referred to as "suit premises") and a direction in the nature of the permanent injunction to the defendant, his agents and relatives from alienation of the suit premises in any manner. Plaintiff has also sought a compensation and damages for an amount of Rs. 2,04,000/ as well as cost of the suit from the defendant.
CS No.56620/16 1/18PLAINTIFF'S VERSION AS PER PLAINT
2. Succinctly, the plaintiff has asserted that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 vide certificate of incorporation bearing No. C 1723 of 194950 (licensed under Section 26 of the I.C. Act) having its registered office as stated above and Sh. George Tomes is its authorized signatory who is competent to sign, verify, institute and file the present suit vide general power of attorney dated 02.09.2009. It is submitted that the plaintiff is the owner of 1 Church Lane, New Delhi 110001, which is the officecumresidence of Bishop of Dioceses of Delhi and the said Church Lane consists of the servant quarters, which are allotted to the workers, peons and servants associated with the Dioceses of Delhi and Delhi Diocesan Trust Association. It is further submitted that defendant was the employee of the defendant from 1972 till 20.10.2001 and at the request of the defendant vide letter dated 30.10.1971, the quarter no. 4 consisting of two rooms situated in the Campus of Bishop's House, 1 Church Lane was allotted to him during his employment with the defendant. It is further submitted that on 10.09.2001, the defendant had written a letter to Secretary of Delhi Diocese thereby seeking early retirement from the services of Diocese, which was allowed w.e.f. 20.10.2001.
3. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 04.06.2002, the Diocese of Delhi had requested the defendant to hand over possession of the suit premises but the defendant had not handed over the same and had been occupying the same illegally and unlawfully. It is further submitted that instead of giving back possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, the defendant had filed a frivolous claim petition before the Labour Court, Karkardooma seeking compensations and reinstatement on the frivolous and fabricated grounds. Hence, the present suit has been filed against CS No.56620/16 2/18 the defendant for possession, permanent injunction, recovery of damages and compensation as well as cost of the suit.
DEFENDANT VERSION AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. On notice, defendant has filed written statement contesting the present suit. It is stated in the written statement of the defendant that the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly as the value of the property is more than Rs.30 lacs and the suit of the plaintiff is also liable to be stayed under Section X of CPC as the dispute with regard to the ownership right of the properties is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is further stated that plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit premises as the plaintiff has suppressed the correct and true material facts. It is further stated in the written statement of the defendant that the defendant is residing in the suit premises as owner prior to 1970 and is in the regular possession of the plaintiff is thus adverse possession. Further, it is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is also barred by the limitation.
REPLICATION
5. On 08.11.2010, plaintiff had filed a replication to the written statement of defendant reiterating the averments in the plaint. The contents of the written statement were denied and the contents of the plaint were reaffirmed and the claim was maintained.
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
6. Admission/ denial of documents was conducted. From the pleadings of CS No.56620/16 3/18 the parties, following issues were then framed by ld. Predecessor Court vide Order dated 12.03.2012 :
1.Whether the plaintiff is a company duly constituted and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the premises bearing quarter no.4, Campus of Bishop's House, 1 Church Lane, New Delhi? OPP.
3. Whether the defendant was alloted the premises bearing quarter no.4, Campus of Bishop's House, 1 Church Lane, New Delhi by the plaintiff being in the services of the plaintiff? OPP.
4. Whether the defendant is residing in the premises bearing quarter no.4, Campus of Bishop's House, 1 Church Lane, New Delhi from prior to the year 1970? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for ? OPP.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to award of compensation as well as damages? If so, at what amount? OPP.
8. Relief.
EVIDENCE
7. PW1 Prabhakar Mahlan stepped into the witness box and deposed vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/B. He relied upon the following documents: CS No.56620/16 4/18 S.No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Document
1. Ex.PW1/1 Appointment of trust deed.
2. Ex.PW1/2 Printout of the webpage from wikipedia.
3. Ex.PW1/3 Minutes of meeting of Delhi Urban Heritage Foundation posted for public view.
4. Ex.PW1/4 Webpage of Press Information Bureau, Government of India posted for public view.
5. Ex.PW1/5 LBZ Guidelines vide office order no.3/2009 issued from the office of Land and Development office.
6. Ex.PW1/6 Relevant pages of zonal development plan.
7. Ex.PW1/7 Chapter 5 entitled built heritage conservation and management NDMC .
8. Ex.PW1/8 Power of attorney dated 28.01.2013.
9. Ex.PW1/9 Certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff.
10. Ex.PW1/10 Copy of Form VI dated 03.09.1949 filed in the office of Registrar of Joint Stock Companies.
11. Ex.PW1/11 Power of attorney dated 02.09.2009.
12. Ex.PW1/12 (Colly) Copy of balance sheets of the plaintiff for the period 1992, 1958, 2005, 2006, 2010 showing the Cathedral Church and extension of Diocesan office at 1 Church Lane, New Delhi in its assets list.
13. Ex.PW1/13 (Colly) Copy of house tax receipts of 1 Church Lane, New Delhi for the periods 2004, 2005, 2006 & 201011.
14. Ex.PW1/14 (Colly) Copy of water and electricity bills.
15. Ex.PW1/15 Copy of form 32 filed with the ROC showing Father Robert Wills as the Chairman of the plaintiff.
16. Ex.PW1/16 Copy of letter of employment of the defendant with Diocese of Delhi.
17. Ex.PW1/17 (Colly) Letters dated 01.08.1972, 16.04.193, 26.07.1973, 10.10.1975, 31.10.1975, 28.11.1975 showing employment of the defendant with Diocese of Delhi.
CS No.56620/16 5/1818. Ex.PW1/18 Site plan of the suit premises.
19. Ex.PW1/19 Letter of request written by the defendant seeking allotment of servant quarter and its permission.
20. Ex.PW1/20 (Colly) Letters dated 30.03.1976, 14.7.1976, 21.11.1994, 28.06.1995, 16.08.1995 allotment of servant quarter to the defendant.
21. Ex.PW1/21 Letter written by the defendant seeking retirement from the services.
22. Ex.PW1/22 Letter dated 04.06.2002 written by Diocese of Delhi to the defendant.
23. Ex.PW1/A Suit of the plaintiff.
24. Mark X Copy of claim petition filed by the defendant.
8. PW2 Mohit Heinz Hitter, Secretary of the plaintiff stepped into the witness box and deposed vide his affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He relied upon the following documents: S.No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Document
1. Ex.PW2/1 Copy of appointment letter of PW2 dated 22.07.2014 issued by the then Bishop of Diocese of Delhi.
2. Ex.PW2/2 Copy of resignation letter given by Rev. Prabhkar Mahlan.
9. PW3 Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Finger print expert stepped into the witness box and deposed that he had examined signatures of of the defendant from the statement recorded as DW1 on 08.07.2011 and 23.07.2011, written statement dated 10.09.2010, reply and affidavit dated 05.07.2012 and statement recorded on 14.09.2016. PW3 further deposed that all the signatures under comparison have been written by one and the same person.
CS No.56620/16 6/1810. Another witness examined as PW3 Charan Singh, Clerical Assistant House Tax Department who has produced the details of the property tax with respect to property no.1, at 1 Church Lane, New Delhi vide document bearing no. D&C Item No. 71/304, PID No. 1010 Ex.PW3/1, which is certified by Accounts Officer (Tax).
11. PW4 Brijesh Kumar, Clerical Assistant, Commercial Department, Rates Branch, NDMC has produced the document with respect to electricity and water bills payment with respect to 1, Church Lane, New Delhi, which are duly certified by Assistant Accounts officer (Rates Branch). The electricity bill is Ex.PW4/1 and water bill is Ex.PW4/2.
12. PW5 Sh.R.K. Saini, Senior Technical Assistant, office of Registrar of Companies has brought certified copy of the case pertaining to Delhi Diocesan Trust Association 1 Church Lane, New Delhi, which are Ex.PW5/1 (Colly). PW5 has also brought certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act with respect to computer generated documents Ex.PW5/2.
13. All the witnesses were cross examined at length by counsel for the defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed on 10.10.2017. This is entire evidence of the plaintiff adduced in the present case.
14. DW1 Rt. Rev. Warris K Masih stepped into the witness box and has relied upon following documents : S.No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Document
1. Ex.DW1/1 Computer generated salary slip for the month of September 2017 of DW1 alongwith covering letter bearing signatures of Prem Masih, Honorary Treasurer, Church of North India Synod.
2. Mark DA Copy of appointment letter of Rev. Mohit H Hitter as Honorary Secretary of DDTA.
CS No.56620/16 7/183. Mark DB Power of attorney executed by DDTA in favour of Rev Mohit H Hitter.
4. Mark DC, DE, DF, DG, Copies of 6 "plan of Church Union of North India DH and DI and Pakistan".
5. Mark DJ Memorandum and article of association of DDTA.
6. Ex.DW1/2 Installation as Bishop of Diocese of Delhi, Church of India of DW1.
7. Ex.DW1/3 Photograph of installation ceremony.
8. Mark DL Copy of instrument of election as Bishop in the Church of North India and appointment of DW1 as Bishop of Diocese of Rajasthan.
9. Mark DM (Colly) Copy of resolutions of the 6 Churches.
10. Mark DN (Colly ) Copy of letters dated 11.03.2016 and 23.03.2016 in respect of transfer of DW1 from Bishop of Rajasthan to the Bishop of Diocese of Delhi.
11. Mark DP Copy of certificate of incorporation of DDTA.
12. Mark DQ Copies of minutes of meeting held on 20.05.2016 passed by DDTA.
15. DW2 Alwan Masih stepped into the witness box and has relied upon following documents : S.No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of Document
1. Ex.DW2/1 (OSR) Appointment letter of Warris K Masih in Rajasthan.
2. Ex.DW2/2 (OSR), Transfer letter dated 23.03.2016 alongwith original Ex.DW2/3 & minutes of meetings held on 20th to 21st August EX.DW2/4 2015 and 18th to 19th February 2016.
3. Ex.DW2/5 (Colly) Original resignation letter of earlier Bishop of (OSR) Diocese of Delhi dated 23.07.2017 & 07.08.2014.
4. Ex.DW2/6 (OSR) Salary slip of Bishop of Diocese of Delhi Rt. Rev Warris K Masih.
CS No.56620/16 8/185. Ex.DW2/7 Resolution of merger and succession of six churches The council of the Bapist Churches in Northern India, the Church of Brethern in India, the Disciple of Christ, The Church of India Pakistan Burma and Ceylon, The Methodist Church (British and Australasian Conferences), The United Church of Northern India.
16. DW3 Most Rev. Dr.P.C. Singh stepped into the witness box and has deposed that he was elected by CNI Synod on 03.10.2017. He states that he did not issue any authority letter authorizing Bishop of Diocese of Delhi to exercise control over the properties including the suit property at 1 Church Lane, New Delhi. DW3 further deposed that CNI Synod does not issue any letter as DDTA has its separate constitution and there is no such letter which states that the bishop of Diocese of Delhi, CNI is exofficial chairman of DDTA. DW3 further states that he has no information regarding the suit property.
17. DW4/ defendant Lawrence Messy stepped into the witness box and deposed vide his affidavit Ex.DW4/1.
18. All the witnesses were cross examined at length by counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed on 31.03.2018. This is entire evidence of both the parties adduced in the present case.
ARGUMENTS
19. Ld.counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendant was the employee of the plaintiff since year 1972 till 20.10.2001 and in the capacity of his services with the plaintiff, the defendant was alloted one servant quarter at Bishop house. It is further argued by the plaintiff that since defendant took voluntary CS No.56620/16 9/18 retirement from the services of the plaintiff, plaintiff had written letter dated 04.06.2002 to the defendant for vacating the suit property. However, defendant has not vacated the same till date and is rather trying to create third party interest in the suit property.
20. Per contra, ld. counsel for the defendant has argued that present suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. It is further argued that plaintiff has failed to place on record any title deeds qua the suit property and therefore, plaintiff ought to have claim declaration of its title in respect of suit property. It was further submitted that no allotment letter was ever issued to the defendant by the plaintiff and rather the father of the defendant has been occupying the suit property since the period of preindependence. It is also contended by the defendant that even the electricity bills placed on record by the plaintiff are not in the name of the plaintiff and therefore, present suit cannot be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
21. I have heard the submissions of counsel for the defendant and the counsel for the plaintiff. I have also gone through the entire case record meticulously with the kind assistance of both the counsels of the parties. After weighing the rival contentions and after appreciating the evidence adduced, my issuewise findings are as below : ISSUES NO.1 & 7 Whether the plaintiff is a company duly constituted and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913? OPP.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to award of compensation as well as damages? If so, at what amount? OPP.
22. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff. However, CS No.56620/16 10/18 during final arguments, Learned Counsel for plaintiff submits that he does not wish to press his prayer for damages or compensation. Also, learned counsel for defendant submits that he does not wish to press issue no.1 as plaintiff is a company duly constituted under the Companies Act.
23. In view of their submissions, there is no need to delve into in these issues and hence both these issues are struck of.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the premises bearing quarter no.4, Campus of Bishop's House, 1 Church Lane, New Delhi? OPP.
24. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. In the present suit, defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit property and has claimed himself as the owner of the same. In order to prove this issue, plaintiff has placed on record various water and electricity bills Ex PW1/14 (Colly) and house tax receipts Ex PW1/13 (Colly). No other document showing ownership of plaintiff has been placed on record. Since, it is well settled proposition that electricity bills and water bills does not confer any title upon the person whose name is appearing on the same, therefore, on the basis of the documents brought on record, plaintiff cannot be said to be the owner of the suit property.
25. In dearth of any specific evidence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.3 Whether the defendant was alloted the premises bearing quarter no.4, Campus of Bishop's House, 1 Church Lane, New Delhi by the plaintiff being in the CS No.56620/16 11/18 services of the plaintiff? OPP.
26. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff has averred in its plaint that the suit property, that is, quarter no.4, 1 Church Lane has been allotted by the plaintiff to the defendant by virtue of defendant being in employment of the plaintiff. Per contra, defendant has denied that the suit property was ever alloted to him by the plaintiff.
27. In order to discharge the burden of proof, plaintiff has annexed various documents, which are as follows :
(i) Copy of letter of employment of defendant with Diocese of Delhi Ex.PW1/16.
(ii) Letters dated 01.08.1972, 16.04.193, 26.07.1973, 10.10.1975, 31.10.1975, 28.11.1975 showing employment of the defendant with Diocese of Delhi Ex.PW1/17 (Colly).
(iii) Letter of request written by the defendant seeking allotment of servant quarter and its permission Ex.PW1/19.
(iv) Letters dated 30.03.1976, 14.7.1976, 21.11.1994, 28.06.1995, 16.08.1995 allotment of servant quarter to the defendant Ex.PW1/20 (Colly).
(v) Letter written by the defendant seeking retirement from the services Ex.PW1/21.
(vi) Letter dated 04.06.2002 written by Diocese of Delhi to the defendant Ex.PW1/22.
28. A careful perusal of these documents show that there are various communications between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the employment of the defendant, allotment of quarter and its vacation. In order to prove these documents, plaintiff has examined PW1 who has categorically stated that defendant was in employment of plaintiff and he was alloted the suit property by the plaintiff. However, on the other hand, defendant has not produced even a single document to show visa versa, that is, he was not employed with the plaintiff at any CS No.56620/16 12/18 point of time or in what capacity he is occupying the suit property. Neither any suggestion has been put to the plaintiff witness nor any document has been placed on record. Though, the plaintiff witness was cross examined at length, not even a single material question relating to the employment of defendant with the plaintiff or allotment of quarter to the defendant was put to the witness. It is well settled law that when any witness has stated a fact on oath in examinationinchief and has not been cross examined by the other party, the said fact is deemed to be admitted. Defendant has also failed to examine any other witness to show that he was residing in the suit property in some other capacity. Defendant has merely denied his signatures upon the letters placed on record by the plaintiff.
29. However, plaintiff has examined a handwriting expert who has been examined as PW3. PW3 has categorically deposed that the signatures appended on all the documents produced by the plaintiff are that of the defendant only. On the other hand, defendant has failed to examine any other expert in order to counter the testimony of handwriting expert produced by the plaintiff or to prove that the signatures on those documents are not of the defendant. Therefore, all the documents placed on record by the plaintiff, that is, Ex.PW1/16, Ex.PW1/7 (Colly), Ex.PW1/19 ,Ex.PW1/20 (Colly), Ex.PW1/21 and Ex.PW1/22 stands proved.
30. In these facts and circumstances, it is proved that the suit property was alloted to the defendant by the plaintiff during the course of the employment. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No.4 Whether the defendant is residing in the premises bearing quarter no.4, Campus of Bishop's House, 1 Church Lane, New Delhi from prior to the year CS No.56620/16 13/18 1970? OPD.
31. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The defendant has stated that he is residing in the suit property prior to the year 1970. The said averment is averred in para 4 of the written statement which is as follows: "That the answering defendant is residing in the suit property as owner prior to 1970 and is in the regular possession of plaintiff is thus adverse possession."
32. Except this bald statement, defendant has neither produced any document nor has examined any witness to show that he is occupying the suit property even prior to 1970, that is, the alleged date of appointment of defendant by the plaintiff, that is, year 1972. Plaintiff has infact failed to lead any evidence in order to discharge his burden. Moreover, in a single statement defendant is taking two mutually contradictory pleas, that is, plea of ownership as well as plea of adverse possession. These two pleas are mutually destructive and cannot sustain in law.
33. In these circumstances, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for? OPP.
34. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Defendant has contended that since plaintiff has failed to bring on record any document showing his ownership over the suit property, present suit is not maintainable as plaintiff ought to have claim declaration alongwith relief of possession.
35. In Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on CS No.56620/16 14/18 25 March, 2008, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held as follows:
11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly. 11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title CS No.56620/16 15/18 or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.
36. Adverting to the facts of the present case, clearly plaintiff has failed to bring on record any document to show his title over the suit property. However, plaintiff has been able show that suit property was allotted by the plaintiff to the defendant in course of employment. Defendant has merely denied the ownership of the plaintiff, however, has failed to bring any document or to lead any evidence to show that there is a serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. Neither the defendant has been able to prove his title or any third party's title over the suit property. Therefore, mere denial of the defendant cannot be treated as a serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff nor it will render the suit as non maintainable in absence of relief of declaration.
37. Moreover, in view of my findings on issue no.3, it is proved that suit property was allotted to the defendant by the plaintiff. Therefore, defendant is CS No.56620/16 16/18 estopped from challenging the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Plaintiff has been able to prove a better title over the suit property than of the defendant.
38. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
39. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought permanent injunction against the defendants from alienating or creating third party interest in any other manner in the suit property.
40. On close perusal of the plaint, it can be observed that except paragraph no.14 and 16 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff has expressed apprehension that the defendants would create third party interest, there is nothing on record to suggest that the defendants are intending to create third party interest at the property. Without any reasonable apprehension, the ingredients for grant of permanent injunction are not made out.
41. I do not see any merit behind this relief as there is nothing on record and further there is nothing expressed in the testimonies of any of the witness which shows that the defendants intend to create third party interest. Therefore, no plausible apprehension for granting injunction is made out.
42. In light of the above discussion, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
CS No.56620/16 17/18RELIEF
43. Consequent to the above discussion, especially in light of the findings of issue no. 3 and 5, the suit is partly decreed with costs to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession. Defendant is directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 15 days from pronouncement of this judgment.
44. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to Record Room after indexing, pagination and completion.
Announced in the open Court (Nupur Gupta)
on 03.07.2018 Civil JudgeI, New Delhi District
New Delhi
The judgment contains pages 1 to 18
all checked and signed by me.
CS No.56620/16 18/18