Delhi District Court
Shri Purshottam Lal Gupta vs Shri Naresh Kumar on 14 December, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. RICHA MANCHANDA
CIVIL JUDGE : CENTRAL03 : THC : DELHI.
SUIT No. 588/2008 [ Counter Claim No. 25/2010 ]
IN THE MATTER OF :
Shri Purshottam Lal Gupta, S/o Shri Khushi Ram Aggarwal,
R/o I83, Ashok Vihar, PhaseI,
Delhi110052. ..............................Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Shri Naresh Kumar,
2. Shri Ramesh Kumar,
3. Shri Suresh Kumar All S/o Late Hoshiar Singh, R/o Village & Post Office Kanjhawala, Delhi110081. .........................Defendants Suit for Permanent Injunction Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 2 DATE OF INSTITUTION : 19.08.2008.
DATE OF DECISION : 14.12.2012. EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Essential facts necessary for disposal of the present suit as per the plaint are that plaintiff purchased the property i.e. Industrial plot bearing No. 143/363 ( 060 ) in the revenue estate of Village Kanjhawala, Delhi110081 ( hereinafter referred to as 'The suit property' for the sake of brevity ) on the basis of registered GPA, Will and notarized Agreement to sell, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit, Cash Receipt and Possession Letter duly executed by Shri Sultan Kanwar, son of Shri Jeevan, on 29.05.2000 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/.
3. It is averred that plaintiff completed construction of a room measuring 10'x12' with boundary wall covering the plot No. Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 3 143/363 and 364 as plot No. 143/364 is purchased by his son. The plaintiff also got installed a domestic light connection duly sanctioned by NDPL on payment of requisite amount of Rs.900/. Since, 29.05.2000, the plaintiff is enjoying peaceful possession of the suit property except a little bit trifle from the defendants.
4. It is alleged that Shri Sultan Kanwar had purchased the suit property from Shri Hoshiyar Singh who is original allottee during the consolidation proceedings in the village, Kanjhawala, Delhi on the basis of registered attorney, Will alongwith notarized agreement to sell, affidavit and cash receipt all dated 11.03.1999. Shri Hoshiyar Singh and Sultan Kanwar expired on 11.12.2005 and 16.06.2005 respectively. The registration of regular sale deed in respect of the suit property could not be executed for want of availability of legal provisions being the village under consolidation proceedings. After registration of the documents, the plaintiff obtained copy of the register karvahi chakbandi on 29.06.2000 to Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 4 ascertain the latest position of the suit property and the plaintiff came to know that mutation proceedings have been affected only with respect of the residential plot bearing No. 142/703 ( 202 ).
5. It is also alleged that when the plaintiff put building material at the suit property for construction purpose in the month of January, all the defendants interfered in construction activities and the matter was pacified with the intervention of neighbours and respectables of the society. The plaintiff immediately reported the matter to the police vide D.D. No. 35B dated 09.01.2008.
6. It is further alleged that on 12.08.2008, the plaintiff alongwith his servant went to the suit property and found defendant No. 1 alongwith 34 persons with an intention to take possession of the suit property on the basis of impugned mutation order dated 20.04.2007. The plaintiff immediately contacted his counsel and obtained copy of KhataKhatoni of the suit property from the Halka Patwari and confirmed that defendant No. 1 has got Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 5 the mutation sanctioned in his favour involving the suit property vide impugned order dated 20.04.2007, passed by Consolidation Officer/Tehsildar, SubDivision, Saraswati Vihar, Kanjhawala, Delhi110081. After scrutinizing the documents, the plaintiff came to know that the mutation carried out and subsequent order dated 20.04.2007 is voidabinitio as appropriate legal proceedings have already been initiated under the relevant Section of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Inspite of personal visits, requests & police complaint lodged by the plaintiff, the defendants are adamant to fulfill their illegal designs. Hence, the present suit.
7. As per plaint, the cause of action to file the present suit arose on 12.08.2008 when defendant No. 1 alongwith 34 persons threatened the plaintiff for forcible dispossession from the suit property on the basis of the impugned mutation order dated 20.04.2007 carried out in his favour.
8. The summons of present suit for settlement were served Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 6 upon defendants. The defendants filed their joint written statement on 30.08.2008 controverting the allegations levelled against them and have submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the suit premises is an allotted plot and the allottee has no right to sell or disposeoff it. The suit is also governed by Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act as the order of Tehsildar has been obtained by fraud. The Central Bureau of Investigation is also investigating the fraud conducted in respect of the allotted lands. The price of the land in the locality have arisen greatly and the High Court of Delhi has passed an order that no sale or transfer of the allotted land can be made to any other person. The suit is bad for nonjoinder of Mrs. Shanti Devi, mother of defendants who is alive and also a legal heir. No valid title has been obtained by the plaintiff with respect to the suit property as plaintiff has not obtained signatures of all the legal heirs on the sale documents.
9. It is alleged that Shri Sultan Kanwar was merely a Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 7 transporter who used to take Shri Hoshiyar Singh to the hospital for his treatment for paralysis and, therefore, Shri Hoshiyar Singh could not sign the sale documents. Shri Sultan Kanwar has no right, title or authority to enter any transaction with the plaintiff in respect of the plot in question. The defendants are in lawful possession of the suit premises and they have preferred a counter claim restraining the plaintiff from dispossessing the defendants from the suit premises. Hence, the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
10. The plaintiff has filed the replication controverting the allegations levelled against him by the defendants in their joint written statement and has reiterated the stand as taken in the plaint.
11. During pendency of the present suit, the defendants failed to appear before the Court to defend the present suit and consequently were proceeded against exparte vide order dated Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 8 17.07.2012.
12. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30.07.2012.
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD (3) Relief.
13. Exparte evidence was led by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has examined himself as the only witness to prove his case. Shri Purshottam Lal Gupta, S/o Shri Khushi Ram Aggarwal, R/o B183, rd 3 Floor, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi110034 appeared as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit which is exhibited as EX. PW1/A. He has also relied upon certain documents in support of the plaint. EX. PW1/1 is GPA dated 11.03.1999. EX. PW1/2 is the Will dated 11.03.1999. EX. PW1/3 is the affidavit dated 11.03.1999. EX. PW1/4 is the Agreement to Sell dated Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 9 11.03.1999. EX. PW1/5 is the receipt dated 11.03.1999. EX. PW1/6 is the General Power of Attorney dated 29.05.2000. EX. PW1/7 is the Will dated 29.05.2000. EX. PW1/8 is the Agreement to Sell dated 29.05.2000. EX. PW1/9 is the Indemnity Bond dated 29.05.2000. EX. PW1/10 is the possession letter dated 29.05.2000. EX. PW1/11 is the Affidavit dated 29.05.2000. EX. PW1/12 is the receipt. EX. PW1/13 is the Register Karyabahi Chakbandi dated 29.06.2008. EX. PW1/14 is the site plan of the suit property. EX. PW1/15 is the police complaint dated 09.01.2008. EX. PW1/16 is the payment receipt to NDPL. EX. PW1/17 is the order dated 31.01.2012. EX. PW1/18 is the certificate issued by the Association and EX. PW1/19 [ collectively ] are the photographs of the suit premises ( Originals of all the documents, except EX. PW1/14, seen, compared and returned back. Vide a separate statement of Shri Purshottam Lal Gupta, exparte evidence was closed on 29.09.2012. Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 10
14. Exparte final arguments were addressed on 19.11.2012.
15. I have heard the exparte final arguments and carefully gone through the record.
16. My issuewise findings are as follows : ISSUE No. 1.
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims himself to be the owner of the suit property vide documents EX. PW1/6 to EX. PW1/12 which includes GPA, Agreement to Sell & Will dated 29.05.2000.
The suit property in question is an agricultural land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kanjhawala, Delhi and the plaintiff claims himself to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell & Will dated 29.05.2000 executed by Shri Sultan Kanwar in his favour. Apparently, Shri Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 11 Sultan Kanwar purchased the suit property from Shri Hoshiyar Singh through GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell and receipt dated 11.03.1999.
No witness has been called from the Office of Sub Registrar, Delhi to prove the registration and execution of the GPA & Will dated 11.03.1999 in favour of Shri Sultan Kanwar. Therefore, EX. PW1/1 to EX. PW1/5 have not been proved by the plaintiff.
Since, the suit property is the agricultural land, it is only the revenue record which will show the title of the owner of the agricultural land and the same cannot be questioned in any civil court. However, no revenue record has been filed on record except the EX. PW1/13 to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and EX. PW1/13 does not in itself clearly show the ownership of the plaintiff with respect to the Khasra No. 143/363 ( 06 ) i.e the suit property. The relief of permanent Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 12 injunction is an equitable relief and the plaintiff has to establish his right over the suit property for claiming injunction against dispossession and creation of third party interest by the defendants.
As a matter of fact in the plaint itself, the plaintiff in para No. 2 has claimed that the registration of the regular sale deed of the suit property could not be executed for want of availability of the legal provisions being the village under consolidation proceedings. This in itself shows the defect in the title of plaintiff and, therefore, no injunction can be granted with respect to creation of any third party interest by the defendants with respect to the suit property.
As regard, the prayer for permanent injunction for dispossession, no current revenue record has been filed on record to show that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.
Since, neither possession nor title stands proved, the Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 13 equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff.
It is the case of plaintiff that the defendants threatened to dispossess him from the suit property. The plaintiff has relied upon the police complaint [ EX. PW1/15 ] dated 09.01.2008 in support of his contentions. However, no witness has been examined by the plaintiff to prove that the complaint [ EX. PW1/15 ] was filed before the Police Station Kanjhawala, Delhi.
In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled to the relief claimed. The issue No. 1, therefore, stands decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. The defendants have not led any evidence to prove this issue.
On the contrary, it is averred in the plaint that the cause of action arose on 12.08.2008 when defendant No. 1 alongwith Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others 14 34 persons threatened the plaintiff for forcible dispossession from the suit property on the basis of impugned mutation order dated 20.04.2007 carried out in his favour. The present suit has been filed on 19.08.2008. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that the suit is not barred by limitation. The issue No. 2, therefore, stands decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
RELIEF In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove on record that he is entitled to the relief claimed. Consequently, the suit of plaintiff stands dismissed.
17. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in Open Court ( RICHA MANCHANDA ) on 14 December, 2012. CivilJudge : Central03 : THC : Delhi.
th Suit No. 588/2008 Purshottam Lal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others