Delhi District Court
Ms. Smriti Sangeeta vs Smt. Beena Mahajan on 30 October, 2017
In the Court of Ms. Vineeta Goyal: Additional District
Judge-03 (South District) Saket Court Complex, New
Delhi.
Suit No.: 6621/2016
CNR No : DLST01-000432-2013
In the matter of :-
Ms. Smriti Sangeeta
D/o Sh. Umesh Chandra
R/o CB-4B, MIG Flats
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 ......Plaintif
VERSUS
1. Smt. Beena Mahajan
W/o Late Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan
2. Sh. Mohit Mahajan
S/o Late Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan
Both R/o Flat no. 93, 1st Floor
CAT-II, Gulmohar Enclave,
Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi-110049 .....Defendants
AND
CS No. : 6637/2016
CNR No: DLST01-000439-2013
Sh. Mohit Mahajan
S/o Late Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan
R/o Flat no. 93, 1st Floor
CAT-II, Gulmohar Enclave,
Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi-110049 ......Plaintif
Suit No. 6621/2016
Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 1 / 26
VERSUS
1. Ms. Smriti Sangeeta
D/o Sh. Umesh Chandra
2. Sh. Umesh Chandra
Both R/o CB-4B, MIG Flats
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 .....Defendants
Date of institution (CS/6621/16) : 23.02.2013
Date of institution (CS/6637/16) : 25.09.2013
Reserved for Judgment : 25.10.2017
Date of decision : 30.10.2017
Appearance: Sh. K. Priyadarshi, Counsel for the plaintif
in suit no. CS/6621/2016 and counsel for
the defendant in suit no. CS/6637/16)
Ms. Rakesh Kansal, Counsel for the
defendant in suit no. CS/6621/2016 and
counsel for the plaintif in suit no.
CS/6637/16)
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of two suits bearing no. 6621/2016 titled as 'Smriti Sangeeta v. Mohit Mahajan & anr.' and no. 6637/2016 titled 'Mohit Mahajan v. Smriti Sangeeta & anr' which stood consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision vide order dated 14.01.2015 by my Ld. Predecessor.
2. The facts which emerged from the facts of suit no. 6621/16 are optimized as under :-
Suit No. 6621/2016Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 2 / 26 2.1 That the plaintif is the owner and landlord of flat no. 93, 1st Floor, CAT- II, Gulmohar Enclave, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') by virtue of duly registered agreement to sell and purchase dated 10.12.2004 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.15,15,800/- duly registered with the ofice of Sub Registrar, New Delhi having purchased of its erstwhile owner Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan; that the said owner also executed GPA for consideration in favour of the plaintif duly registered with the ofice of Sub Registrar, New Delhi and the plaintif was also put in possession of the said property.
2.2. It is next averred that on the request of Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan, the said property was lease out of him vide rent agreement dated 21.08.2006 at the monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- excluding electricity and water consumption charges which was payable by the said tenant. It is further averred that the plaintif applied for the conversion of the said property in her favour in the ofice of Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA) and the said property too stood converted into freehold property in the name of the plaintif on the payment of requisite charges and Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 3 / 26 registered conveyance deed too was executed by DDA in favour of the plaintif, so the plaintif became the absolute owner of the suit property and it too stood mutated in her name in the Municipal record.
2.3. It is further averred that Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan expired in the month of May 2012 leaving behind the defendant as his legal heirs, but now the defendant no. 2 started claiming ownership right over the suit property knowing fully well that Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan (now deceased) ceased ownership right consequent of his execution of documents for valuable consideration in favour of the plaintif and that the tenancy in favour of the Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan (deceased) was month to month which came to an end on his death and possession of any person claiming through him has become illegal without having any right, interest or title rendering the said possession as that of trespasser. It is also averred that the defendant no. 2 also has filed a suit seeking relief of possession and mandatory injunction pending adjudication pertaining to the said property which now belongs to the plaintif having purchased by raising the loan raised by her from HSBC Bank and is still paying monthly installments; that since the defendants become trespasser after the death Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 4 / 26 of Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan so that the plaintif is no longer interested in extending the lease in favour of the defendants. The plaintif served them a notice also terminating the tenancy on 24.01.2013 and called upon them to hand over the possession on or before 15.02.2013 failing which their possession will be considered as that of trespasser having no right title or interest to retain the possession. It is also averred that Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan also is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2012 @ Rs. 15000/- per annum and the defendants are also liable to pay mesne profits/ damages to the plaintif w.e.f. 15.02.2013 which are assessed at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month being the prevalent rate of rent for the vicinity for the similar premises. The said notice was duly served upon the defendants but they failed to comply with the same. Hence, this suit for recovery of possession and also for recovery of an arrears of rent of Rs.1,80,000/- and also for mesne profits/ damages for the use and occupation for the property in question w.e.f. 16.02.2013.
2.4. Pursuant to the process issued by the court, the defendants appeared and contested the claim of the plaintif. At the very outset, they refuted the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintif and Sh.
Suit No. 6621/2016Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 5 / 26 Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan (now deceased) and also raised the plea that the suit has been filed on false and concocted facts. Validity of rent deed too has been challenged and further alleged that the plaintif has filed the present suit on false and manufactured documents and further maintained that the plaintif has illegally disconnected the electricity supply of the suit property to evict them forcibly by adopting illegal manners. On merits, they denied the plaintif to be owner and landlord of the property in question, according to them, Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan (husband of the defendant no. 1 and father of the defendant no. 2) was the absolute owner of the suit property who was old and used to reside alone most of the time as his sons and wife usually are residing in USA and only after the death of Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan on the first week of August 2012, they came to know that Sh. Umesh Chandra, father of the plaintif in collusion with one Mr. Atul Jain and Sh. Alok Rattan has somehow by adopting illegal means got transferred the aforesaid house in the name of the plaintif who often used to meet Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan and used to enjoy liquor together. They alleged that the document as forged and procured one and they also denied the execution of rent deed dated 21.08.2006 and also disputed the conversion of freehold Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 6 / 26 ownership right from the DDA in favour of the plaintif or of her becoming the absolute owner. It is further averred that since the plaintif is harassing the defendants and wanted to dispossess the defendant no. 2 so he filed the civil suit which was subsequently withdrawn by the defendant no. 2 on 18.03.2013 with liberty to file comprehensive suit seeking cancellation of all the documents allegedly executed by Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan (now deceased). They also denied their liability to pay alleged arrears of rent and also mesne profits / damages as claimed by the plaintif and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. Sh. Mohit Mahajan, the defendant no. 2 of suit no. 6637/16 filed a suit against Ms. Smriti Sangeeta, the plaintif, bearing no. CS/6621/2016 and also against her father Umesh Chandra seeking relief of declaration as well as seeking relief permanent and mandatory injunction alleging that his father Surender Kumar Mahajan (now deceased) was exclusive owner of the suit property. As per averment, he is putting up in USA and in the month of June 2012 after the death of his father, he visited India alongwith his mother and in the month of August 2012 he came to know that the defendant no. 1 in collusion with her father and alongwith Sh. Atul Jain Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 7 / 26 and Alok Rattan got transferred the said house by adopting illegal means and he was told by his neighbours that Sh.Umesh Chandra alongwith Sh. Atul Jain used to visit his father frequently and used to enjoy liquor together and he is apprehensive that the defendant no. 2 has somehow managed to get the property transferred in the name of his daughter and that the defendant has not supplied him the copy of documents and the defendant no. 2 also got the electricity supply disconnected so he filed the civil suit seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction for restoring the electricity supply. He further averred that on 14.02.2013 he received the copy of agreement to sell and purchase dated 10.12.2004, possession letter dated NIL, Receipt dated 10.12.2004, GPA dated 13.12.2004, rent agreement dated 21.08.2006, conveyance deed dated 04.02.2011 from Ms. Smriti Sangeeta, the defendant no. 1 alongwith written statement filed by him in that suit and on perusing those documents, he came to know about the said transaction of sale and purchase and it appears that the defendants have lured his father to enter into the sham transaction. It is further averred that at the time of said transaction, the defendant no. 1 was only 19 year old and she has no capacity to enter into the said transaction and no Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 8 / 26 possession was delivered by his father and he remained in possession. It is also averred that the defendant no. 2 used to make periodic payments to his father and the plaintif is also in possession of the diary written by his father in which entires reveals that the defendant no. 2 is indebted to the father of the plaintif to the tune of Rs.90 Lacs. The plaintif therefore, lodged the police report in the police station and since 11.08.2012 the defendants are threating the plaintif and asking him to vacate the property in question and on 17.12.2012 at about 4.00 PM, the defendants alongwith three persons came to the suit property in question and threatened him and asked him to vacate the possession of the suit property but he raised hue and cry and apprehending trouble, they left the suit property. The plaintif withdrew the earlier suit with liberty to file the fresh suit for comprehensive relief hence the present suit declaring the documents pertaining to transferring the ownership right to the defendant no. 1 is null and void and restraining the defendants to interfere in the peaceful possession and restoration of electricity supply.
3.1. Pursuant to notice issued by the court, the defendants appeared and refuted the pleas as raised by the plaintif (the defendant no. 2 in suit no. 6621/2016 ) .
Suit No. 6621/2016Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 9 / 26 They raised all the pleas as raised by them in their prayers in suit no. 6637/2016. They denied that property in question stood transferred as alleged in collusion with Sh. Atul Jain alleging that Smriti Sangeeta paid consideration amount by raising loan from HSBC Bank and she also got converted into freehold and DDA recognized the title of the defendant no. 1 (the plaintif in suit no. 6621/16) in all respect. They also disclosed about taking the suit property on rent vide rent deed dated 21.08.2006 by late (Sh.) Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan so they prayed for disposal of suit stressing their prayer as raised by Smriti Sangeeta (plaintif in suit no. 6621/2016) and for possession as well as arrears of rent, mesne profits/ damages and for the use and occupation of the premises in question.
4. The parties went on trial on the following issues of both the consolidated suit framed by the then Ld. ADJ vide order dated 14.01.2015:-
1 Whether the defendants are trying to create third party interest in respect of suit property bearing no. 93, 1st Floor, CAT- II, Gulmohar Enclave, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi and they are liable to be restrained from doing so by way of a decree of perpetual injunction? OPP 2 Whether the plaintif has got the suit property Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 10 / 26 transferred in her name illegally and under the influence of liquor from Sudharshan Kumar Mahajan? OPD 3 Whether the documents executed by Sudharshan Kumar Mahajan in favour of Ms. Samriti Sangeeta are liable to be declared as null and void? OPD 4 Whether the plaintif is under an obligation to restore the electricity supply to the suit premises by installing an electricity meter and she is liable to be directed to do so by way of a decree of Mandatory Injunction? OPD 5 Whether the plaintif has tried to dispossess the defendant Mohit Mahajan from the suit property or caused hindrance in the peaceful and enjoyment of the suit property and she is liable to be restrained by doing so by way of a decree for perpetual injunction? OPD 6 Relief.
5. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties and gone through record.
6. The parties led their respective evidence, and after appraisal of evidence led by both the parties, my issue- wise findings are as under:-
7. As the findings of the issue no(s). 2 and 3 would be relevant for deciding issue no. 1, so issue no(s). 2 and 3 are taken first.
Suit No. 6621/2016Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 11 / 26 ISSUE NO. 2 AND 3 7.1. Both these issues are interconnected and so these are taken up together for the purpose of discussion.
7.2. It is the case of the plaintif Ms. Smriti Sangeeta that Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan (now deceased) who happened to be the owner of the suit property transferred the suit property for valuable consideration by executing the legal and valid documents in a favour of the plaintif and she, too, subsequently get the property freehold by paying conversion charges to the DDA and her name too stood mutated in the Municipal record as owner. But this plea of her stands refuted by the defendants who claimed that the plaintif in collusion of her father and Atul Jain got procured from his father, when he was under the influence of liquor and so claimed to be manipulated documents.
7.3 In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties led evidence.
7.4 The plaintif as her own witness as PW2 tendered his evidence where she maintained all those facts as find in the plaint. She was subjected to lengthy cross-
Suit No. 6621/2016Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 12 / 26 examine wherein she too asserted her ownership over the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell dated 10.12.2014 Ex.P-1. GPA dated 13.12.2004 Ex.P-2, Conveyance dated 04.02.2011 Ex.P-3, Rent dated 21.08.2006 vide which Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan took the premises on rent as mark A. Copy of legal notice served upon the defendants intimating about termination of tenancy dated 07.01.2013 as Ex.P-4. She, however, admitted in her cross-examination that said Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan remained possession in property in question claiming that he was subsequently inducted as tenant vide rent agreement dated 21.08.2006.
7.5. As per her deposition, she purchased the suit property for sum of Rs.15,25,800/- out of which she paid Rs.14,9700/- by raising a loan from HSBC Bank and same was paid to Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan vide demand draft no. 207860 dated 10.02.2004 beside the remaining payment through other modes against receipts. She denied that all the documents so placed on record are procured documents. She also denied the suggestion that the said Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan did not execute the will in her favour. Her version stands corroborated by her father Sh. Umesh Chandra who appeared as PW3. He tendered his afidavit as PW3/A Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 13 / 26 where he fully supported the narration given by her daughter Ms. Smriti Sangeeta, the plaintif and deposed that his daughter was aged only 19 years when she purchased the suit property. He endorsed her version that she raised a loan Rs.14,97000 from the bank and he stood as a guarantor for the same pertaining to the loan and also admitted that the balance amount of Rs.18,800/- was paid by him to her. According to him, bank sanctioned the loan to her on the basis of her financial credential as well as after getting the property documents veracity, legality checked. He however, denied the suggestion that he used to get the documents executed from Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan in good faith and under the influence of liquor and also denied the suggestion that all the documents are procured documents.
7.6. Corroborating this, PW4 Sh. Gulab Singh deposed about conversion of suit property to freehold in the name of Ms. Smriti Sangeeta, the plaintif by DDA. He further deposed that the plaintif after purchasing the suit property from Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan applied for conversion deed before DDA and after paying of Rs.1,59,167/- all the freehold ownership right of the suit property stood transfer, however he denied the Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 14 / 26 suggestion put to him that he had got no personal knowledge about facts of the present case.
7.7. Ms. Nisha Verma, the mother of the plaintif appeared as PW5 in her afidavit Ex.PW5/A and deposed that about her standing as co-guarantor for the loan so advanced by the bank to her daughter and also deposed that her husband Umesh chandra stood as guarantor. She further deposed that she had been the witness of the conveyance deed dated 04.02.2011 executed by the DDA in favour of the plaintif for making the suit property freehold and about mutating of the plaintif's name in the revenue record and deposed about Gulab Singh as a witness who was Assistant DDA, Commercial Land. In her cross-examination she deposed about filing of documents at the time of conveyance deed with agreement to sell, GPA etc. she denied the suggestion that Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan remained the owner of the property and was never inducted as a tenant. Sh. H.D. Sharma tendered his afidavit as Ex.PW6/A where he endorsed the version of the plaintif about purchase of the suit property from Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan and also about inducting him as tenant in the suit property vide agreement dated 21.08.2006, he also disclosed the Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan died on Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 15 / 26 21.05.2012 and after his death the month to month tenancy came to an end. He also deposed about his visit alongwith father of the plaintif and one Manish Gupta on 16.02.2013 requesting the defendants to vacate the possession of the suit property which they flatly refused and also apprised them about institution of civil suit and creating an interest of third party in the suit property. In his cross-examination he admitted his acquittance with late (Sh.) Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan stating that he was known to him since last around 35 years. He has also clearly stated that Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan sold suit property as he was in need of money and also deposed that he also demanded money from him after year 2001. He also denied the suggestion he ever seen Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan in the state of intoxication. He also deposed the execution of rent deed by Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan in favour of the plaintif in his presence though he was not witness in the rent agreement.
7.8. Sh. Manish Gupta PW1 tendered his evidence as PW1/A and deposed about his accompanying Sh. H.D. Sharma to the defendants on 16.02.2013 requesting them to vacate the possession on the asking of Umesh Chandra, father of the plaintif.
Suit No. 6621/2016Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 16 / 26 7.9. All the witnesses examined by the plaintif unfolded the version of the plaintif about her purchasing the suit property from Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan then issuance of conversion deed dated 04.02.2011 by DDA as freehold property during the lifetime of Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan and also inducting of Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan vide rent deed dated 21.08.2006 and about death of Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan on 21.05.2012.
7.10. In order to rebut the evidence of the plaintif, the defendant no. 2 Sh. Mohit Mahajan appeared as DW1 and tendered his evidence as DW1/A where he reiterated the pleas as maintained by him in written statement as well as in his plaint of suit no. 6637/16. According to him, his father expired on 21.05.2012 and till his death, his father remained in possession of the suit property. According to him, he came in India in the month of June 2012 and came to know in first week of August 2012 that the plaintif and her father in collusion with Sh. Atul Jain somehow by adopting illegal means got transferred the suit property in the name of Ms. Smriti Sangeeta and he was told by his neighbour that father of the plaintif and Sh. Atul Jain used to visit frequently and used to enjoy liquor together and he has got apprehension that Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 17 / 26 Sh. Umesh Chandra had somehow managed to get property transferred in the name of his daughter illegally and under the influence of liquor. According to him since his electricity connection got disconnected, he filed a civil suit and he was supplied on 14.02.2013 with the document by the plaintif alongwith the written statement which they filed in that suit viz Agreement to sell and purchase, GPA, possession letter, Conveyance deed and only then he came to know that the plaintif got executed illegally from his father by adopting illegal methods in collusion with his father and one Atul Jain. According to him, all these documents are null and void and liable to be declared so. According to him, he is in possession of diary of his father in which entries revealed that Sh. Umesh Chandra, father of the plaintif indebted to his father to the tune of Rs.90 Lacs. According to him, he lodged a complaint in police station Ex.DW1/5 and since the plaintif and her father threatening him to vacate the suit property and on 16.11.2012 at about 12.30 PM, oficial of BSES and the plaintif and her father came to suit property and removed the electricity meter and on 17.12.2012 at about 4.30 PM, the plaintif alongwith her father came and threatened him asking him to hand over the suit property. As per his contention, he alongwith his mother Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 18 / 26 and his brother become the owner of the suit property being legal heirs of Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan, now deceased. He exhibited the site plan Ex.DW1/1 and also tendered the copies of documents viz agreement to sell, possession letter etc. Ex.DW1/2 (colly), Copy of electricity bill Ex.DW1/3, Copy of receipt issued by Gulmohar Enclave Residential Association Ex.DW1/4, photocopy of passport of his father as Mark A and copy of police compliant as Mark B. In his cross-examination he stated to be resided in USA since year 1998, he admitted that his father died on 21.05.2012. He also admitted that he did not attend the funeral and last rites of his father as he came in June 2012. According to him, nobody communicated at any point of time that his father transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintif. He by stating that he admits that he came to know in the first week of 2012 that the property has been transferred by his father in collusion with Sh. Atul Jain and Sh. Umesh Chandra. He stated that he was told by his next door neighbour about these persons used to visit his late father and used to take liquor. According to him, his father was addicted to liquor but stated that he is not aware of his sitting with Umesh Chandra and Sh. Atul Jain. He himself contradictory his earlier version, stating that he came to know these documents Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 19 / 26 purportedly executed by his father in favour of the plaintif in the year February 2013. He admitted that leaves of diary bearing entries Ex.DW1/P-1 do not bear signatures of his father. He showed his inability to tell as what transaction took place by his father and further stated that he has got no knowledge if there exist any co-relation between the transactions in the year 2004 and entries which had come in year 2005 onwards. He admitted that his father did receive sum of Rs.14,97,000/- by pay order no. 204599 dated 01.12.2004 issued by HSBC bank. He next stated that since his father was habitual of taking liquor so there is strong suspicion that he never intended to any transaction with anyone with regard to suit property and that had been done under the influence of liquor and thus it is a sham transaction. The defendant also examined Sunny Pandey as DW2. He proved the agreement of fixture and fitting date 22.11.2004 as DW2/1 receipt dated 13.12.2004 as Ex.DW2/3 and receipt dated NIL as Ex.DW2/4 and in his cross- examination he stated that he was not personally aware controversy in the present suit.
7.11. Thus, on judicial scanning of the statement of Sh. Mohit Mahajan, the defendant/plaintif in other suit Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 20 / 26 reveals that he has disclaimed the documents relating to transfer of suit property by his father in favour of the plaintif only on the basis of suspicion. He did not examine Sh. Anil Dhir, his neighbour, who apprised him about frequent visits of Sh. Umesh Chandra and Sh. Atul Jain to his late father and giving him the company in enjoying the liquor. There is no other proof of authenticating the suspicious or apprehensive version of Sh. Mohit Mahajan. It is on record that Sh. Sudershan Mahajan used to remain alone in the suit property, therefore, without any further proof, his solitary statement can not take the place of proof. Mere suspicion on apprehension of the defendants that the plaintif got executed the document from Sh. Sudershan Mahajan under the influence of liquor cannot raise the presumption of document being a sham transaction. The defendants were required to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence which the defendants failed to prove. The solitary statement of the Mohit Mahajan is not suficient to outweigh the oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintif Ms. Smriti Sangeeta. The fact of installing fixtures and fittings in the premises in question as disclosed by DW2 Sh. Sunny Pandey is not suficient to dislodge the claim of the plaintif as such no suggestion was put to the plaintif Ms. Smriti Sangeeta Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 21 / 26 when she appeared as PW2. Further the receipt of DW2/3 dated 13.12.2014, further belies the contention of the defendants as from the contents of said receipts, it transpires that Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan issued the said receipt to the plaintif in lieu of receipt of part payment for sale of his flat bearing no. 93, SFS DDA Flats, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. It does not depict that the said receipt was issued by him to the plaintif on the account of any work done by the plaintif on account of improvements of flat.
7.12 Thus, the entire discussion made above leads to irresistible conclusion that Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan (now deceased) did transfer his property which is devolved on to the plaintif by executing documents viz. Agreement to sell, GPA, Conveyance Deed etc and it is also evident that during the lifetime of Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan, the plaintif applied for conversion of her property as freehold and on payment of requisite fee and also got the conveyance deed and the said property too stood mutated in her name in Municipal Revenue Records. It has also come on record that Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan used to reside alone and his wife and both the sons were residing abroad. It has come on record that Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan took on lease the suit property by Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 22 / 26 executing the rent deed at 21.08.2006. Though, the rent deed is for 3 years and required to be registered still as evident from the record that Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan remained in possession till his death, but at the same time, the defendants, the legal heirs cannot claim retaining of the possession of suit property as his legal heirs as tenancy came to an end on the death of Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan who remained in possession as tenant of the plaintif.
7.13. Thus, the contention of the defendants that the plaintif Ms. Smriti Sangeeta herein got the suit property transferred in her name illegally and under the influence of liquor from Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan and documents executed by him are liable to be declared as null and void does not stand substantiated. So, both these issues are decided against the defendants namely Smt. Beena Mahajan and Sh. Mohit Mahajan and in favour of the plaintif namely Ms. Smriti Sangeeta.
ISSUE No. 17.14. There is no convincing and cogent evidence on record that the defendants are trying to create third party interest in the suit property and as such required Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 23 / 26 to be restrained. It may be mentioned here that as discussed above, the defendants ceased to have any right, title, interest in the suit property, so they can not legally create third party interest. Further, as referred above, no evidence to that efect so led by the plaintif, so this issue becomes redundant and stands adjudicated accordingly.
ISSUE No. 4.
7.15. Since the defendants were ceased to have any interest title in the suit property and tenancy in the favour of Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan came to an end so that the plaintif is not under any obligation to resume electricity supply to the suit property by installing meter and she can not be given direction of the same, so this use is decided in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.
ISSUE no. 5.
7.16. As discussed while discussing issue no(s). 2 and 3, the plaintif Ms. Smriti Sangeeta is the owner of the suit property and the defendants Smt. Beena Mahajan and Sh. Mohit Mahajan have no right to retain the Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 24 / 26 possession in any capacity so the plaintif can not be restrained to take back the possession of the suit property from the defendants who in no capacity are entitled to retain the possession. So, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintif.
RELIEF
18. In the final analysis, the suit of the plaintif Ms. Smriti Sangeeta for recovery of possession is decreed, it may also be mentioned that the plaintif has claimed arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2012 till 15.02.2013, also mesne profits/ damages from 16.02.2013 till actual delivery of possession, it may be mentioned here that there is no evidence that Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan (now deceased) was in arrears of rent at the timing of his death which took place on 21.05.2012 so the plaintifs can not recover the same, since the defendants here retained the possession, thereafter too and still are in possession so they are liable to pay the mesne profits / damages @ Rs.15000/- per month from 01.06.2012 till they surrender possession as there is no evidence on record led by the plaintif that premises situated can fetch Rs.30,000/- as rental value.
Suit No. 6621/2016Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 25 / 26
19. Thus, in final analysis suit bearing no. 6621/16 filed by Ms. Smriti Sangeeta stands decreed with cost for recovery of possession as well as mandatory injunction and mesne profits/ damages for the use and occupation of the suit property w.e.f. June 2012 till the defendants i.e. Smt. Beena Mahajan and Sh. Mohit Mahajan surrender their possession @ Rs. 15000/- per month alongwith interest @ 6% and suit of the defendants (plaintifs therein) bearing no. 6637/2016 is ordered to be dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheets be prepared and decree sheet in the case of Ms. Smriti Sangeeta, be prepared after deposit of court fees.
File be consigned to record room. Copy of the judgment of suit no. 6621/2016 be also placed on suit no. 6637/2016.
Pronounced in the Open Court on 30.10.2017 (Vineeta Goyal) Additional District Judge-03 South District: Saket: New Delhi Suit No. 6621/2016 Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 26 / 26