Delhi District Court
Cs Dj 7646/16 Brij Bhushan Sharan vs . Tibetan Medical Astro Institute Page ... on 9 November, 2022
DLSE010000722010
Presented on : 26-02-2010
Registered on : 20-09-2012
Decided on : 09-11-2022
Duration : 12 years, 8 months, 11 days
Date of Institution : 26-02-2010
Date reserved for judgement : 10-10-2022
Date of announcement of judgment : 09-11-2022
Decision : Dismissed
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MUNISH MARKAN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ADJ02) SOUTH EAST,
DISTRICT COURTS, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CS DJ 207646/2016
SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN (SINCE DECEASED)
Now represented by the LRs :
1. Pradeep Sharan
S/o Late Sh. Brij Bhushan Sharan,
R/o 3-A, Jaipur Estate,
Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi -110013.
2. Navin Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan Sharan,
R/o 11B, Jaipur Estate,
Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi -110013.
3. Pravin Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan Sharan,
R/o 11B, Jaipur Estate,
Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi -110013.
4. Ravinder Sharan
CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 1/20
S/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan Sharan,
R/o B-99, Mansarovar Garden,
New Delhi -110015.
5. Smt. Shanti Devi
W/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan Sharan,
R/o 11B, Jaipur Estate,
Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi -110013.
6. Smt. Rashmi Goel
W/o Sh. Sharad Goel,
R/o 11B, Jaipur Estate,
Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi -110013.
7. Anil Kumar Garg
S/o Late Sh. Brij Mohan Sharan,
R/o 11A, Jaipur Estate,
Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi -110013.
8. Brij Kishore Sharan
S/o Late Sh. Brij Mohan Sharan,
R/o 11A, Jaipur Estate,
Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi -110013.
9. Ms. Anjana Singal
W/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar,
R/O 45, Pocket 2,
Jasola Vihar,
New Delhi -110025. ...... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
M/S. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE
At : Plot No. 13,
Jaipur Estate Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi - 110013. ....... Defendant
CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 2/20
J U D G M E N T:
1. This is a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of Plot no.13 admeasuring 642.2 Sqr. Yards, as shown in red in the site plan, Jaipur Estate, situated opposite Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi (hereinafter called the suit property) filed by the plaintiff claiming to be the Paramount Lessor having terminated the lease executed in favour of the defendant.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was (plaintiff died on 21.10.2011) the owner of the two plots(Muafi Land) one measuring 1.632 Acres and the other measuring 0.857 Acres inter alia known as Jaipur Estate. These two plots were given on lease for a period of 99 years executed by His Highness Maharaja Sahib Bahadur of Jaipur through Sh. V.T. Krishnamachari, Prime Minister and Minister In charge of the Revenue Department, (Jaipur Government) vide registered Lease Deed dated 30.08.1947 (Ex PW1/1) in favour of Sh.Seth Ram Nath, Sh.Gauri Shankar and Sh.Ghanshyam Das. The trio, in turn executed registered Conveyance Deed dated 20.11.1947 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the two pieces of lease hold land and transferred their lease hold rights therein to the plaintiff.
3. It is further stated that the plaintiff further subdivided the said two pieces of land into several plots and the suit property i.e. plot no.13 was given on Sub lease dated 16.11.54 to Smt. Prakash Devi for the balance period of 99 years commencing from 16.08.47 for a consideration of Rs.9633/ with annual rent CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 3/20 of Rs.97/. Smt. Prakash Devi constructed a house on the land and trnasferred her rights vide registered Sub Lease dated 16.10.1959 in favour of Sh.Ved Prakash Mehra. Further, Sh.Ved Prakash Mehra executed Sub Lease registered on 10.10.1962 in favour of Smt. Prakash Kaur. Smt. Prakash Kaur died on 05.02.1988 leaving behind her husband Sh.Sampuran Singh and her daughter. Sh.Sampuran Singh claiming to be the only heir transferred the rights to the defendant for the rest of the period of 99 years vide deed duly registered on 23.12.1988. Smt. The predecessors in interest of the defendant and thereafter, the defendant paid the annual rent @ Rs.97/ to the plaintiff till 15.08.2006. A sum of Rs.194/ was payable by the defendant since 15.08.2006 for the period of 16.08.2006 till 15.08.2008. Since the defendant committed the breach by defaulting for the payment of the lease money, the plaintiff terminated lease vide notice dated 30.06.2008 and called upon the defendant to handover the possession of the suit property by 15/16.08.2009.
4. Plaintiff further stated that the defendant sent the reply dated 14.08.2008 claiming to have purchased the rights and interest from the State Government of Rajasthan in the demised premise vide registered Conveyance Deed dated 11.09.2006. The defendant, in collusion with the State Government of Rajasthan, without the consent of the plaintiff, applied for the conversion of the property from Lease hold to Free hold in malafide and illegal manner and it does not affect the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property. The defendant had no right to deal directly with the CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 4/20 State of Rajasthan or to obtain Free hold rights to the detriment of plaintiff. By virtue of the defendant setting up title, the defendant had renounced its charactar as lessee and as the lease stood determined, also by forfeiture and estopple. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed the possession of the suit premises, decree for a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs on account of use and occupation charges @ Rs.50,000/ per month for the period 16.08.2009 to 15.02.2010 seeking further mesne profits till the possession is handed over. WRITTEN STATEMENT:
5. Defendant in his written statement stated that suit is not maintainable as framed and plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. The suit is barred by time. State of Rajasthan have determined the lease of the plot of land from which the plaintiff was deriving his rights and suit for possession bearing No.587/93 was filed against the plaintiff and others. During the pendency of the said suit, since the lease stood determine, the State of Rajasthan derived out a scheme to convert Lease hold rights into Free hold rights in favour of individual occupants and plaintiff himself obtained Free hold rights of plot No.3A, Jaipur Estate, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi in his favour, so is the other occupants namely Sh.Naveen Chawla, Sh.Ram Mohan, Sh.A. N. Ahuja, Sh.Brij Mohan Saran, LRs of Sh.Tara Chand, LRs of Sh.B. R. Sharan, LRs of Sh.I. N. Bhandari, LRs of Sh.M. M. Sharan and Sh. Bhandari and the plaintiff never objected to the same.
CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 5/206. Defendant stated that the plaintiff has deliberately concealed these material facts. Once the plaintiff himself acquiesced the action of State of Rajasthan, the paramount lessor converting lease hold rights into free hold in favour of the respective occupants, after the determination of the lease of the plaintiff, all rights in favor of the plaintiff stood extinguished. The plaintiff cannot maintain the present suit on the basis of the said lease deed, which is not in existence. Under these circumstances, the defendant received a letter dated 08.05.2003 from the State of Rajasthan for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold, then only, the defendant exercised the right and paid Rs.9,84,746/- as conversion charges and conveyance deed dated 11.09.06 was executed in their favour and the defendant is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff knowing fully well never challenged the right of State of Rajasthan of such conversion. Defendant denied the ownership of the plaintiff to the plots as claimed and took the plea that the termination notice dated 30.06.2008 is bad in law. The plaintiff himself applied for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold only in respect of the portion in his occupation and he never applied for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold in respect of the whole portion of the land leased out to him. The plaintiff was fully aware that all other defendants in respect of that suit also got the land occupied by them converting into free hold. The plaintiff has not challenged the conveyance deed either earlier or even in the present suit have never sought any declaration in this regard. Plaintiff has no right to claim any lease money as no lease exists.
CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 6/20Further the valuation of 25 lakhs as claimed by the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
REPLICATION:
7. Plaintiff filed the replication reiterating his stand made out in the plaint. Plaintiff denied any acquisecence to the alleged transaction between the State of Rajastan and the defendant. The State of Rajastan had no authority or any right in respect of the suit property and could not terminate the lease of the plaintiff. Further, giving the background, the plaintiff stated that initially integration of Rajputana State started and Rajasthan union was formed. Thereafter, other states of Rajasthan i.e. Jaipur, Jodhpur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer were integrated with the former Rajasthan union to form United States of Rajasthan and thereafter, a fresh covenant was signed and the ruler of Jaipur became the Rajpramukh of the Union and to hold the office during his life time.
8. Plaintiff further stated that as per the Constitution of India, all the state properties vested in the Government of India under the covenant as agreed upon prior to the constitution came into force. Therefore, the State of Rajasthan would govern all the properties and assets falling within its territory. The properties and assets falling with the territory of Rajasthan would be governed by law of Rajasthan state and as the suit property was situated in Delhi, the same shall be governed by the law applicable to Delhi. The State of Rajasthan had no control/authroity over the land in question. Plaintiff admitted that the State of Rajasthan filed a suit against the plaintiff for CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 7/20 possession of 2.489 acres of muafi land but the said suit was dismissed in default on 15.05.2010 and the restoration application therein is pending. State of Rajasthan had no authority to formulate the alleged scheme to convert lease hold rights into free hold rights in favour of the individual occupants which is contrary to the Article 299 of Constitution. Plaintiff has already terminated lease of other occupants and filed suits for recovery of possession against some of them. Plaintiff reiterated his case as made out in the plaint.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff has concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from the court? OPD
2. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable on account of failure of the plaintiff to challenge the conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006 executed by Government of Rajasthan in favour of the defendant? OPD
3. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff acquiesced in the action of the State of Rajasthan executing a conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006 in favour of the defendant?OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the plot no. 13 with construction thereon situated at Jaipur Estate, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi against the defendant? OPP
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.3 lacs against the defendant on account of damages for use and occupation charges from 16.08.009 to 15.02.2010 @ Rs.50,000/- per month? OPP CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 8/20
7. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mesne profit/damage for use and occupation of rent against the defendant on the date of institution of suit, if so, at what rate? OPP
8. Relief.
10. During plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined PW1 Shri Anil Kumar Garg who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/23 except PW1/15 and PW1/18. Plaintiff also relied upon the documents Mark P1 to P5.
11. During defendant evidence, defendant examined DW1 Shri Tashi Wangdu, SPA holder of the defendant who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW 1/A and relied upon documents Ex DW1/1 and the Mark D1
12. Defendant also examined DW2 Shri Prem Veer Singh, Ahlmad, who placed on record the copy of the suit No.282/13 titled as State of Rajashan Vs. Brij Bhushan Sharan as Ex. DW2/A and the copy of order dated 22.07.2003 as Ex. DW 2/2.
13. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. The issue wise findings of the court are as under:
ISSUE No.2 and 4.
Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable on account of failure of the plaintiff to challenge the conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006 executed by Government of Rajasthan CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 9/20 in favour of the defendant? OPD Whether the plaintiff has acquiesced in the action of the State of Rajasthan executing a conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006 in favour of the defendant?OPD
14. As per the plaintiff, the two plots of land measuring 1.637 Acre and other measuring .857 Acre known as Jaipur Estate were given on lease vide lease deed dated 30.08.47 Ex PW1/1 by His Highness Maharaja Saheb Bahadur of Jaipur through Sh.V. T. Krishnamachari Prime Minister and Minster In charge of Revenue state, (Jaipur Government) in favour of Sh.Seth Ram Nath, Gauri Shankar and Ghanshyam Dass. Further, the trio transferred their Lease hold rights vide registered Conveyance Deed dated 20.11.1947 Ex PW1/3 in favour of the plaintiff which is also not disputed. The plaintiff further sub divided the Jaipur Estate into different pieces of land into plots and subleased the suit property bearing plot no. 13 measuring 642.2 sqr. Yards in favour of Smt. Prakash Devi vide registerd Sub Lease dated 06.11.1054 Ex P5. Smt. Prakash Devi transferred the said rights vide registered sale Deed dated 16.10.1959 in favour of Sh.Ved Prakash Mehra and Sh.Ved Prakash Mehra further transferred his rights to Smt. Prakash Kaur vide registered sale Deed dated 29.09.62. Smt. Prakash Kaur having died on 05.10.1988, her legal heir Sh.Sampuran Singh further transferred those rights vide sale Deed registered on 23.12.1988. None of these documents are disputed by the defendant. However, as per the plaintiff, defendant committed default in payment of the lease money. Therefore, the plaintiff CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 10/20 terminated the lease vide notice dated 30.06.2008 and filed the present suit for possession and damages.
15. On the other hand, the stand of the defendant is that the ownership of the residuary and reversionary rights under the first Lease dated 30.08.1947 Ex.PW1/1, after the merger of the Princely State of Jaipur and its integration with India on 07.04.1949, stood transferred to the United State of Rajasthan and on 26.01.1950, they came to vest in the state of Rajasthan, then a part B state under the Constitution and there remained no Maharaja as the owner of the reversionary rights as per the Rajasthan Gazette Notification dated 02.02.1952. Further, it is argued that the reversionary rights in the suit property vested with the State of Rajasthan which, in pursuant to the Free hold policy dated 22.02.2003 executed the Conveyance Deed dated 11.09.06 Ex DW1/2 in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant. Further, the stand of the defendant is that State of Rajasthan had filed a suit bearing No 587/993 among others, against the present plaintiff, for possession of the whole of Jaipur Estate and gave a notice dated 24.02.92 thereby terminating the first lease dated 30.08.47 Ex PW1/1.
16. As per defendant, in the said civil suit no.581/93, an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC was moved by the State of Rajasthan having settled disputes with number of defendants therein including the defendant no.1 therein Sh. Brij Bhushan Sharan i.e. the present plaintiff and on 22.07.2003, the said application was allowed and among others, the said suit was CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 11/20 withdrawn qua defendant no.1 therein Sh. Brij Bhushan Sharan i.e. the present plaintiff and the signatures of Sh. Chaman Lal Sachdeva Adv. counsel for defendant no.1 therein(i.e. the present plaintiff) were taken on the order sheet as an acknowledgement. It is further argued by. Ld. Senior Counsel for defendant that thereafter, conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006 was executed by the Government of Rajasthan in favour of the present defendant in respect of the suit property and the suit property was converted from lease hold to free hold as per Delhi Government pattern and this was done by regularizing ex post facto the flats sold by Sh. Brij Bhushan Sharan i.e. the present plaintiff for 99 years sub lease basis. It was argued that apart from the suit property, the other plots in the Jaipur Estates particularly plots no. 3A,3B,11A & 11B Jaipur Estate too were converted to free hold on 06.05.2003. Ld. Senior counsel for the defendant further argued that after the meeting of the ministrial Committe of the Government of Rajasthan on 22.02.2003, deciding to relax the nazul rules 1971 and to regularize ex post facto the sold plots, no ground amount have been paid by the plot owners to the plaintiff Sh. Brij Bhushan Sharan. Neither any rent was demanded by the plaintiff from any of the erstwhile sub-lessees in Jaipur Estate. Further, the plaintiff also did not pay any ground rent to the state of Rajasthan or to the Maharaja after 1986.
17. Defendant further argued that not only that, the plaintiff Sh. Brij Bhushan Sharan executed a registered family settlement on 22.04.2003 Ex.PW1/D1 whereby he transferred his rights in favour of his son Sh. Pradeep Sharan and other family CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 12/20 members and in pursuance to the said family settlement, various conveyance deeds were executed on 06.05.2003 by the State of Rajasthan in favour of Sh. Pradeep Sharan, Saroj Saran, Brij Mohan, Praveen Kumar and Naveen Kumar in respect of plot no. 3A,3B,11A,11B and 11B respectively and others. Therefore, it is argued that in the present suit, the conduct of the plaintiff shows that he acquiesced to the conversion of the suit property from lease hold to fee hold and further knowingly has filed the present suit for possession without challenging the conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006, therefore, it is argued that the suit is not maintainable in the present form.
18. First of all, the question of vesting of residuary and reversionary rights from Maharaja Sahib Bahadur, Jaipur to the State of Rajasthan is required to be examined as it goes to the root of the matter.
19. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had argued that the State of Rajasthan did not have any right title or interest in the Jaipur Estate, more specifically in the suit property, at any point of time and therefore conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006 Ex. PW1/D could not have been executed by the State of Rajasthan in favour of the defendant and is therefore, bad in law.
20. The first lease deed Ex.PW1/1 was executed by the Maharaja of Jaipur through Prime Minister and Minister/In charge, Jaipur Government in favour of the 3 persons. After integration of princely state of Jaipur with the Union of India, on 07.04.1949 to the United States of Rajasthan and on CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 13/20 26.01.1950, the State of Rajasthan became a part B state under the Indian Constitution. From the first lease deed Ex.PW1/1, it is clear that it was executed by Jaipur Government, which is indicative of the fact that this Jaipur Estate was not personal property of the Maharaja and therefore after coming into existence of the State of Rajasthan after 26.01.1950, all the rights in the Jaipur Estate vested in the State of Rajasthan. It is for this reason that after 1986, Munsarim Purejat Katra Allahabd returned the draft sent by the plaintiff towards the lease money and it is for this reason, PW1 admitted during cross examination that after 2006, they did not send the lease money because in the correspondence, Munsarim Purejat Katra Allahabd informed that they will not accept the money since the matter is subjudice as per the first lease Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 conveyance deed.
21. Therefore, it is clear that the State of Rajasthan was having the residuary and reversionary rights in the suit property and the conveyance deed being executed by the State of Rajasthan in favour of the defendant on 11.09.2006 and further the plaintiff through his family members having executed the conveyance deeds in respect of Plot no. 3A,3B,11A,11B vide Ex.PW1/D2 and mark DX, Ex.PW1/D3 and Ex.PW1/D4 and registered family settlement Ex.PW1/D1, it is clear that it is not only the defendant who had taken advantage of the conversion of the property from lease deed to free hold but the plaintiff through his family members (including few of the plaintiffs after the death of the original plaintiff) who are the beneficiaries of ex-
CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 14/20post facto conversion of lease hold rights to free hold of the different plots. It is clear that the plaintiff has acquiesced in the action of the State of Rajasthan by settling the suit no. 587/93 with the state of Rajasthan. Copy of the plaint of the said suit is Ex.PW2/1 and the order dated 22.07.2003 Ex. PW2/2. Therefore, State of Rajasthan claimed itself to be the paramount lessor of the Jaipur Estate in the year 1993 and the plaintiff raising the claim in the present suit in the year 2010 (the suit having been filed on 26.02.2010) is therefore also barred by time. The plaintiff was required to challenge the conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006, which the plaintiff had failed to do so and in the absence of the challenge to the conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006, the suit otherwise is not maintainable. Therefore, both the Issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had also argued that suit has not been filed by a duly authorized person. No specific issue was framed in this regard. However, defendant had filed SPA Ex.DW-1/1 authorizing DW-1 executed by the Director and Registrar of the defendant. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no merit in the plea of the plaintiff in this regard. ISSUE NO.5.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the plot no. 13 with construction thereon situated at Jaipur Estate, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi against the defendant? OPP
22. In addition to the findings given in the Issue no. 2 & 4, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had argued that that the said lease in favour of the defendant stood determined by forfeiture u/s 111(f) CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 15/20 of Transfer of The Properties Act and the defendant became liable to be evicted. It is argued that the State of Rajasthan had only executed the conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006 in respect of the plots of land and the suit property being only part of the whole of the Jaipur Estate, therefore, there cannot be any merger u/s 111(d) of The Transfer of Property Act as purchaser of only part by a sub leasee in a larger estate does not create the merger of the interest of the superior lessor and to that of the sublessee so as to make the sublessee as owner of the smaller estate. In this regard, she has relied upon AIR 1951 SC 186, AIR 1931 PC 63 and has further relied upon the judgment of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husna Bano AIR 2005 SC 2857. Perused.
23. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Counsel for defendant also relied upon the same judgment of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (supra) and had argued that the said judgment by majority (2:1) had over ruled the judgment of Indira Perfumery and had held that if the sub tenanty acquires the entire interest of the owner in the whole of the estate forming the subject matter of subtenancy, the sub tenancy mergers into ownership and the sub tenant can't be the owner and the sub tenant both at the same time.
24. Ld. Senior Counsel for defendant argued that State of Rajasthan while creating the conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit land had conveyed interest in respect of 642.2 yards specific plot no.13 and full interest was conveyed and not any undivided 1/14th CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 16/20 interest in the entire Jaipur Estate. Perusal of the conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006 reflects that Shri Brij Bhushan Sharan gave lease of land measuring 642.2 sq. yards to Smt. Prakash Devi in Jaipur Estate Plot No.13, New Delhi, regarding which the State of Rajasthan had agreed to sell its residuary and reversionary rights and interest in the said premises. The said conveyance deed nowhere specified that any undivided 1/14th interest in a larger plot was granted.
25. In fact the plaintiff himself had executed the first sub- lease in respect of suit property only and therefore, it cannot be said that any part interest was acquired by the defendant in rest of the smaller estate. So far as the suit property is concerned, it was a matter of the sub tenancy of a specific defined piece of land i.e. plot no. 13 and defendant having acquired interest in respect of the whole of the sub tenanted estate i.e. plot no. 13 vide the conveyance deed dated 11.09.2006, therefore, in view of the ratio of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (supra), the said tenant i.e. the defendant became the owner of the entire interest in the whole of the estate i.e. the suit property and therefore, the said tenancy merged into the ownership and the estate of the sub-tenant i.e. the defendant stand enlarged into that of a full owner and therefore, the defendant became the owner of the suit property by acquiring residuary and reversionary rights in the suit property and therefore, it created the merger as per section 111(d) of Transfer of The Properties Act. Therefore, the plaintiff was left with no right title or interest in the suit property and the plaintiff himself through his family members having followed the suit and his CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 17/20 family members by executing the conveyance deeds had followed the same path and infact, in the family settlement Ex.PW1/D1 dated 22.04.2003, plaintiff himself had categorically stated that he is the absolute owner and in physical possession of property no.3A Jaipur Estate, which shows that in respect of the different plots particularly plot no.3A in the Jaipur Estate, plaintiff himself treated himself as the owner of the said plot and his family members thereafter acted upon the said family settlement and later on, got executed the conveyance deed on the similar lines as that of the defendant.
26. Therefore, the plaintiff having left with no right, title or interest in the suit property and therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. ISSUE No.6 and 7.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.3 lacs against the defendant on account of damages for use and occupation charges from 16.08.009 to 15.02.2010 @ Rs.50,000/- per month? OPP Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mesne profit/damage for use and occupation of rent against the defendant on the date of institution of suit, if so, at what rate? OPP
27. In view of the findings given in issue no.5 as aforestated, these issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE No.1 and 3.
Whether the plaintiff has concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from the court? OPD CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 18/20 Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD
28. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff had deliberately concealed and suppressed the material facts from the court. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the plaintiff has concealed the fact that earlier suit no.587/93 was filed against the present plaintiff by the State of Rajasthan and Sh.Chaman Lal Sachdeva Advocate on behalf of the present plaintiff in that suit had signed the order sheet on 22.07.2003 and further, the plaintiff had concealed the family settlement Ex.PW 1/D1 and has also concealed the factum of his family members executing similar Conveyance Deed in respect of different plots in the Jaipur Estate and therefore, it was argued that these material facts were suppressed by the plaintiff.
29. In the plaint, there is no mention of any family settlement and the execution of the Conveyance Deed by the family members of the plaintiff in respect of different plots in Jaipur Estate that too were executed by the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiff has not divulged the factum of filing of the suit by the State of Rajasthan and the settlement by the plaintiff himself through his counsel in the said suit filed by the State of Rajasthan. All these were material facts which were required to be disclosed by the plaintiff in the suit. In fact, the only plaintiff witness PW1 Sh.Anil Kumar Garg during his cross examination admitted that the family settlement Ex.PW1/D1 were executed between Sh.Brij Bhushan Sharan, his wife, his son and daughters.
CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 19/20He also admitted that Conveyance Deed Ex.PW1/D2 was executed in respect of plot no.3A in favour of Sh.Pradeep Sharan, his son and the plaintiff by the State of Rajasthan. He also admitted the execution of other Conveyance Deed in respect of plot No.11A and 11B.
30. In my considered opinion, these were valid documents and relevant and necessary for the proper disposal of the matter but these were not disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaintiff. Therefore, both these issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
RELIEF:
31. In view of the above, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by MUNISH
MUNISH MARKAN
on 09.11.2022. MARKAN Date:
2022.11.11
14:48:56 +0530
(Munish Markan)
Additional District Judge02 (SED)
District Courts Saket, New Delhi
pk
CS DJ 7646/16 BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN Vs. TIBETAN MEDICAL ASTRO INSTITUTE Page 20/20