Delhi District Court
Maya Devi vs Kishan Pal And Anr on 26 October, 2023
CS SCJ 1215/19
MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
IN THE COURT OF MS. KANIKA AGARWAL, CIVIL
JUDGE-01 (SOUTH) SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No :- 1215/16
CNR No. :- DLST03-0001964-2019
MAYA DEVI
W/o Late Sh. Sohan Pal
R/o CPO 7, 8 Madangir,
New Delhi-110062 ......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. KISHAN PAL
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Pal
R/o CPO 7, 1st Floor, Madangir,
New Delhi-110062 ......DEFENDANT NO. 1
2. MADAN PAL
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Pal
R/o B-124, JJ Basti Indra Camp
Nr. Virat Cinema, B Block
Dakshinpuri
New Delhi-110062 ......DEFENDANT NO. 2
Date of Institution : 19.12.2019
Date of Decision : 26.10.2023
Date of framing of issues : 07.07.2022
Date of final arguments : 31.08.2023
Decision : Partly Decreed
Page no. 1 of 20
(Kanika Agarwal)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1215/19
MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT:-
1. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction.
AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT:-
2. Succinctly, it is the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and in possession of House no. CPO 7 & 8 Madangir, New Delhi 110062 (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Properties"). Defendant no. 1 is the son of plaintiff and residing at the 1st floor of CPO 7 Madangir, New Delhi along with his family. Defendant no. 2 is also son of the plaintiff and residing at B-124, JJ Basti, Indira Camp, Dakshinpuri New Delhi 110062. It is averred that late husband of the plaintiff owned and possessed the suit properties bearing CPO No. 7 & 8 Madangir, New Delhi and during his lifetime had executed a Will dated 09.11.2014 in favor of plaintiff.
3. However, after demise of her husband, defendants and their family members started harassing the plaintiff in her old age and never provided any kind of financial and medical assistance to her. Defendant no.1 despite using electricity and water facilities, never pays any charges for the same and continues to harass the plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff and her late husband had already disowned the defendants vide publication in daily newspaper Page no. 2 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
Rashtriya Sahara on 07.03.2012 and several police complaints have been made against the defendants by the plaintiff. However, defendants continue to threaten the plaintiff. Having left with no other option, the present suit has been filed with the following prayer :
a) To pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and not to create third party interest in the suit properties;
b) To pass a mandatory injunction thereby directing defendant no. 1 to remove his and other family member's articles, goods and belongings from the suit properties and defendant no. 2 not to enter into the suit properties;
c) To pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for damages @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of filing the present suit till the date of removing their articles;
d) Cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;
e) To pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Page no. 3 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
AVERMENTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
4. In written statement filed by defendant no. 1, it is stated that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts to gain advantage of her own wrong. It is stated that suit is liable to be dismissed as the entire plaint is vague, vexation and meritless as from the entire plaint and for want of cause of action. It is stated that plaintiff does not have any documentary evidence against the defendant and defendant is living in the suit properties since from his childhood. It is stated that Late father of defendant no.1 was never entitled to execute a Will as the suit properties is an illegal properties and plaintiff has no title to the suit properties. It is stated that plaintiff has stalled electricity and water connection due to which harassment has been caused to defendant no.1 and his family members. All the other averments of the plaint have been denied. Hence, it is prayed that the present suit be dismissed.
REPLICATION:-
5. In replication, averments of the plaint have been reiterated and contents of the written statement have been denied.
6. Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 26.03.2022, defendants were proceeded ex-parte for non- appearance.
Page no. 4 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
ISSUES:-
7. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 07.07.2022.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as claimed? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as claimed ? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of damages at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month as claimed? OPP
4. Whether the Will dated 09.11.2014 is a forged and fabricated document? OPD
5. Whether plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit properties? OPD
6. Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:-
8. To prove her case, plaintiff herself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and tendered her affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 has placed reliance upon the following documents :-
(i) Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) i.e. Aadhar Card of plaintiff;
(ii) Ex. PW1/2 i.e. Original Site Plan of properties no. CPO 7,8 Madangir, New Delhi;
(iii) Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) i.e. Copy of Will dated 09.11.2014;
Page no. 5 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
(iv) Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) i.e. Copy of publication in Rastriya Sahara, newspaper dated 07.03.2012;
(v) Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) i.e. Copy of letter / undertaking of Kishan Pal dated 09.01.2015;
(vi) Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) i.e. Copy of suit properties documents;
(vii) Ex. PW1/7 i.e. Original complaint dated 16.08.2019;
(viii) Ex. PW1/8 i.e. Original complaint dated 26.07.2019;
(ix) Ex. PW1/9 i.e. Original complaint dated 13.06.2019;
(x) Ex. PW1/10 i.e. Original complaint dated 17.06.2019;
(xi) Ex.PW1/11 i.e. Original complaint dated 13.08.2018;
(xii) Ex. PW1/12 i.e. Original complaint dated 02.05.2018;
(xiii) Ex. PW1/13 i.e. Original complaint dated 30.09.2016;
(xiv) Ex. PW1/14 i.e. Original complaint dated 08.03.2019 alongwith postal receipts;
(xv) Ex. PW1/15 (OSR) i.e. Copy of legal notice dated 26.09.2019; and (xvi) Ex. PW1/16 (OSR) i.e. Reply of legal notice dated 03.10.2019.
9. PW1 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendants as defendants remained ex-parte. Thereafter, vide separate statement of plaintiff, PE was closed on 07.07.2022.
10. Perusal of the record shows that on 26.09.2022, an application u/O IX Rule 7 CPC was filed by Ld. Counsel for Page no. 6 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
defendant no. 1 for setting aside ex-parte order dated 26.03.2022 which was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this court on 10.01.2023. Thereafter, PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1.
11. During cross-examination, PW1 has stated that defendant no. 1 has been residing in the suit properties for about last 10-12 years. She further stated that her husband had purchased the suit properties vide title documents Ex. PW1/6 (colly). It is further sated that properties no. 8 was alloted to her relative and properties no. 50 was alloted to her husband which were exchanged between the parties with mutual consent. It is stated that at the time of exchange, properties no. 7 was not with her husband and it was purchased subsequently. It is stated that she does not know if any house tax for properties no. 8 is being paid. PW1 stated that she has been residing in properties no. 8 for last 50 years. It is admitted that defendant no. 1 is her son who was born in Birola Village, District Aligarh. It is stated that defendant no. 1 was residing with her in the properties since inception but for some time he also resided in some other properties on rent for 6-7 years. It is admitted that defendant no. 1 and his first wife resided in the suit properties after marriage and left the properties to reside elsewhere. It is denied that she has disconnected the electricity and water supply of D1. It is stated that she did not give electricity and water to defendant no. 1 after an Page no. 7 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
electricity bill of Rs. 35,000/- was issued after inspection of the site by BSES. It is admitted that she has not filed electricity bill in the present suit and has not placed on record receipt of payment of Rs. 35,000/- to BSES. It is stated that she had supplied electricity and water to defendant no. 1 in compliance of court's order but defendant no. 1 broke the electricity and water meter. It is denied that electricity and water was not supplied by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1. It is further denied that she want to evict defendant no. 1 from properties no. 7 as she is a senior citizen. It is denied that she has no title documents of properties no. 7 & 8. It is denied that she want maintenance from defendant no. 1. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:-
12. On the other hand, in support of his case, defendant no. 1 examined himself as DW1 and tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex. DW1/A.
13. DW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for plaintiff. DW1 during cross-examination has stated that he has regularly been paying the charges for electricity and water consumption, however, there is no electricity in his house since beginning. It is stated that he paid for electricity to the plaintiff. It is stated that the electricity bill of CPO no. 8 was issued in the name of his father. It is admitted that plaintiff and his father had been residing in the suit properties for last 50-60 years.
Page no. 8 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
14. It is admitted that he has not challenged the Will dated 09.11.2014 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) and handwritten undertaking Ex. PW1/5 (OSR). It is also admitted that Madan Pal used to reside in the first floor of CPO 8. It is stated that he doe not know if plaintiff and his father had disowned him. It is admitted that defendant, plaintiff, his wife and his children often get into fights against which complaints have been filed by plaintiff. It is denied that he has not filed any ration card of his father Late Sh. Sohan Pal @ S Pal. It is denied that the electricity connection in CPO 8 is in the name of the plaintiff. It is further denied that he beat plaintiff in order to grab the first floor of CPO 8. It is denied that his wife and children used to beat and abuse the plaintiff for which MLC has been prepared and police complaints have lodged against them. It is stated that he do not know if CPO 7 & 8 was purchased by his late father. It is stated that he do not know if his father had exchanged CPO 50 for CPO 8. Thereafter, vide a separate statement by defendant no. 1, defence evidence was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments. FINDINGS: -
15. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as none appeared on behalf of the defendants to advance the arguments.
16. The file has been carefully and minutely perused and my issue-wise findings with reasons thereof are as under: -
Page no. 9 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.ISSUE NO. 1
Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as claimed? OPP ISSUE NO. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as claimed ? OPP ISSUE NO. 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of damages at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month as claimed? OPP AND ISSUE NO. 5 Whether plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit properties?
OPD
17. All the issues being interconnected are taken together for consideration. The burden to prove issue no. 1 to 3 is upon the plaintiff, whereas the burden of prove qua issue no. 5 is upon the defendant. The present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction is filed by the plaintiff on the strength that she is the absolute owner of the properties bearing no. CPO 7 & 8 of Madangir, New Delhi. It is the case of the plaintiff that her late husband Sohan Pal was the absolute owner of properties bearing no. CPO 7 & 8 Madangir, New Delhi 110062 and during his lifetime he executed a Will dated 09.11.2014 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) in her favour thus making her the Page no. 10 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
absolute owner of the aforesaid properties after his death. It is stated that after her husband's death and by operation of the Will dated 09.11.2014 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR), she has become the absolute owner of the properties. It is stated that the defendants being her real sons have never provided her with any kind of financial or medical assistance, that defendant no.1 who resides with his family on 1 st Floor of CPO 7 are of quarrelsome nature and have created an uncongenial atmosphere thus disturbing the peaceful life of the plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff had allowed defendant no.1 to reside at 1st Floor of the said properties as a licensee due to love and affection. Multiple complaints Ex. PW1/7 to Ex. PW1/14 were also lodged by the plaintiff against the defendants to their misbehaviour and illegal activities.
18. Per contra, it is the admitted case by the defendant no. 1 that he along with his family member (4 children and wife) is residing at 1st Floor of the suit properties. It is the case of the defendant that he is residing in the suit properties since his birth and that it is rather the plaintiff who is harassing defendant no. 1 and his family members. It is strongly contended that defendant no. 1 and 2 being the legal heir of late Sh. Sohan Pal (husband of plaintiff) have all the rights to stay in the suit properties.
19. Before adverting to decide the present case on merits, court deems fit to refer to law pertaining to mandatory injunction.
Page no. 11 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
The law related to mandatory injunction is encapsulated in section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As per section 39, the plaintiff is required to show there is an existing legal right/obligation in his favour which has been breached by the act of the defendant.
20. In this regard, court deems fit to refer to judgment of Hon'ble High court of Allahabad in Raghunath and Ors Vs. The Municipal Board and Ors. AIR 1952 ALL 465 wherein it has been held that:-
"Under Section 65 of Specific Relief Act, a mandatory injunction can be issued to prevent the breach of an obligation. No doubt an obligation is co-related to a legal right and normally one would expect that the prevention of the breach of an obligation has reference to the obligation owed to the plaintiff. But there may be an obligation which is not directly co-related to a legal right in the plaintiff but is a condition precedent to the enforcement of that right. In order to provide relief to the plaintiff and securing him the right to which he is entitled it may be necessary to prevent a breach of a certain obligation the performance of which is a condition precedent to the securing of the plaintiff's right and in such a case the Court has power to prevent the breach of the obligation".
Page no. 12 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
21. In view of settled principles of law, the plaintiff has to first establish that there is existing legal right in his favour, the breach of which has given rise to cause of action in his favour.
22. Further, the plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be the owner /licensor of the suit properties and the defendants as licensee. The law pertaining to jural relation of licensor and licensee has been succinctly captured by Hon'ble High court of Kerala in Ayissa Ummar Vs. Ami S.A. No. 695 of 1989 wherein it has been held that:-
"A licensee has no interest in the land and his possession is purely permissive. A licensee does not create any estate or interest in the properties to which it relates. As licensees the Defendants cannot obviously claim any right of possession over the properties. In the case of a licensee, though the occupation is with the licensee the control or possession of the properties is with the licensor through such a licensee. The occupation of the licensee being purely permissive under the Licensor the former is under legal obligation to restore the possession of the properties to the latter whenever licensee is terminated. Licensor can definitely call upon the licensee to vacate the premises. The Licensor is legally entitled to the relief by way of mandatory injunction if a suit is filed within a reasonable time period."
Page no. 13 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
23. Now, coming to case in hand, pleadings of plaintiffs show that the present suit is filed on the premises that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the properties by virtue of Will dated 09.11.2014 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR). The plaintiff in order to show the title of her late husband qua the properties bearing no. CPO 7, Madangir, New Delhi has relied upon document by Municipal Corporation of Delhi document Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) and two handwritten notes. As far as MCD document Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) is concerned, same is illegible and cannot be comprehended. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel during final arguments that vide document Ex. PW1/6 (OSR), MCD had leased out properties no. CPO 7 to Sukhram s/o Sh. Harsukh (the original allottee) who in turn had sold the properties for Rs 13,000/- to one Mohd. Ayub vide handwritten document dated 20.05.1980. Further, Mohd. Ayub had sold the properties to late husband of plaintiff vide handwritten document on a stamp paper of Rs. 2/- dated 18.07.1985.
24. Firstly, the MCD document Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) is not illegible and cannot be relied upon for any purpose. Plaintiff should have called necessary witness from MCD department in order to prove the contents of document. Second, even if it is presumed that Sukhram was leased out the properties by MCD, then also he had no authority to sell the properties in favour of Mohd. Ayub as he was merely the licensor in the said properties. The MCD being the Page no. 14 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
owner of the properties has the sole authority to transfer the properties. No record has been filed to show that properties was sold to Mohd. Ayub with prior consent of MCD or that the properties was converted to freehold upon payment of charges. Further, the manner in which the properties has been sold to Mohd. Ayub and then to late husband of the plaintiff is unknown to law. The law regarding the valid mode of transfer of the immovable properties has been succinctly dealth with by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd v. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 2012 SC 206 wherein it has been held as follows: "We therefore reiterate that immovable properties can be legally and lawfully transferred/ conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transaction of the nature of 'GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/Will' transfers do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized as valid mode of transfer of immovable properties. The court will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable properties. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title except to the limited extent of Section 53 A of TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of Page no. 15 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
conveyance in regard to freehold properties but also to transfer of leasehold properties. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales (emphasis supplied)".
25. Evidently the manner in which the properties of MCD has been dealt with by Sukhram (the original allottee) is in complete violation of the law. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be deduced that there was valid transfer of property no. CPO 7, Madangir, New Delhi by Sukhram in favour of Mohd. Ayub and by the latter in favour of Sohanpal (Late husband of plaintiff).
26. Further, there are absolutely no documents showing the title/ ownership of the Late husband of the plaintiff in property bearing no. CPO 8, Madangir, New Delhi. PW1 in her cross- examination had stated that property bearing no. 50, Madangir, New Delhi was alloted to her husband by MCD and property bearing no. CPO 8, Madangir, New Delhi was alloted to their relative. Subsequently, the properties were exchanged by late husband of the plaintiff and their relative. However, such plea of exchange of properties cannot be relied upon in absence of there being any document on record which could show that property no. 50, Madangir, New Delhi was alloted to late husband of the plaintiff and Page no. 16 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
same was exchanged with property no. CPO 8, Madangir, New Delhi.
27. In light of discussion above, it is evident that no right/ interest ever came to be vested in late husband of the plaintiff with respect to the suit properties. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the plaintiff is the sole owner of suit property bearing no. CPO 7 & 8, Madangir, New Delhi after the death of her husband. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prover her status in the suit properties as that of owner / licensor. Hence, the investigation into the status of the defendant as that of licensee is unnecessary and irrelevant.
28. Having said that, the plaintiff's settled possession in the suit properties has not been disputed by the defendants as well. The plaintiff has claimed to be residing in the suit properties for last 30- 40 years. Further, the defendant no. 1 in his cross-examination dated 07.02.2023 has admitted that plaintiff has been in possession of the suit properties for last 50-60 years. Accordingly, as far as issue no. 1 is concerned, same is partly allowed to the extent that defendants are restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in property bearing no. CPO 7, Madangir, New Delhi. As far as issues no. 2 is concerned, considering that the plaintiff has failed to establish her title as that of licensor/ owner in the properties i.e. CPO 7 & 8, Madangir, New Delhi, therefore, defendant no. 1 cannot Page no. 17 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
be asked to remove his belongings from the suit properties. Further, since the possession of plaintiff itself in the suit properties is not lawful, therefore, defendant no. 2 cannot be restrained from entering the suit properties.
29. As far as issue no. 3 is concerned, no relief for damages can be granted in favour of the plaintiff as she has failed to establish her title as that of licensor/ owner. At this stage, the attention of the court is drawn to order dated 23.11.2021 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court whereby defendant no. 1 was directed to deposit monthly charges of electricity and water consumption in court with respect to property bearing no. CPO 8, Madangir, New Delhi on every 1st day of the month. However, till date, there is no clarity from the side of plaintiff if electricity and water sub-meter was provided to defendant no. 1. However, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and in light of statement of defendant no. 1 dated 23.11.2021 before this court that he shall pay for monthly electricity and water charges subject to electricity and water sub-meter being provided by the plaintiff, court deems fit to pass directions to defendant no. 1 to pay monthly water and electricity chargers as per his sub-meter readings to the plaintiff. The payment of water and electricity charges shall be dependent upon a condition that plaintiff will first provide electricity and water sub-meter to defendant no. 1 in respect of the suit properties. Further, issue no. 5 stands decided Page no. 18 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff in light of court's observation as stated above.
30. Conclusively, issue no. 1 stands partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants whereas issues no. 2 & 3 stands decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Further, issue no. 5 stands decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 4Whether the Will dated 09.11.2014 is a forged and fabricated document? OPD
31. The burden of prove is upon the defendant. Only the bald averments were made by the defendant that Will dated 09.11.2014 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) was forged and fabricated. No evidence has been led by the defendant to establish their defence. At the same time, the plaintiff has also failed to prove the Will dated 09.11.2014 Ex. PW/3 (OSR) as per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, though the Will dated 09.11.2014 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) has not been proved by the plaintiff as per law, however, there is absolutely nothing on record to come to the conclusion that Will dated 09.11.2014 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) is forged and fabricated. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Page no. 19 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1215/19 MAYA DEVI Vs. KISHAN PAL AND ANR.
ISSUE NO. 6RELIEF
32. In view of above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed to the effect that defendants are restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in property bearing no. CPO 7, Madangir, New Delhi. Further, directions are issued to defendant no. 1 to pay monthly water and electricity charg- ers as per his sub-meter readings to the plaintiff. The payment of water and electricity charges shall be dependent upon a condition that plaintiff will first provide separate electricity and water sub-me- ter to defendant no. 1 in respect of the suit properties. No order as to cost. All interim order stands merged with the judgment.
33. Decree Sheet be accordingly prepared.
34. File be consigned to record room thereafter.
Digitally signed by KANIKAPronounced in open court: KANIKA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
Dated: 26.10.2023 2023.10.26
16:07:55 +0530
(Kanika Agarwal)
CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/26.10.2023 Note :-This judgment contains twenty pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. Digitally signed by KANIKA KANIKA AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2023.10.26 16:08:00 +0530 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/26.10.2023 Page no. 20 of 20 (Kanika Agarwal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi