Delhi District Court
JudgeCumJudge vs Sh. Sushil Sahani on 9 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF VIPIN KHARB ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGECUMJUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURTCUMGUARDIAN
JUDGE, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 60446/16
Smt. Raj Kumari
W/o Sh. Arun Sahni
R/o H. No. B799, Aman Vihar
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi86.
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Sushil Sahani
S/o Sh. Brahamdev
2. Smt. Pawan Devi
W/o Sh. Sushil Sahani
Both R/o H. No. 799, Aman Vihar
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi86.
3. The Manager
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
Sub Station Building, Police Colony
Model Town II, Delhi110009.
......Defendants
Date of Institution: 19.05.2015
Date on which judgment was reserved: 13.03.2019
Date of pronouncing judgment: 09.04.2019
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the plaint in nutshell are that Smt. Dropti Devi i.e. mother in law of plaintiff and defendant no. 2 and mother of defendant no. 1, was the owner of property of 72 sq. yds in Khasra no. 804 situated in area of Village Kirari, Suleman Nagar Colony, known as Aman Vihar, Delhi110086 (hereinafter Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 1/17 referred as "the total plot"). Out of the above said property of her mother in law, plaintiff purchased property bearing no. H No. B799 (Old no B25) measuring 36 sq. yards out of 72 sq. yards Khasra no. 804 situated in area of Village Kirari, Suleman Nagar Colony, known as Aman Vihar, Delhi110086 (hereinafter referred as "the suit property") and remaining portion of 36 sq. yds was given to the defendant no. 1 and 2.
2. Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from her mother in law Smt. Dropti on 13.05.2013 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ and Smt. Dropti Devi had executed the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Receipt and Will on the same day and all the documents were attested by Notary Public and possession was also handed over to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is residing in the suit property since the date of purchase alongwith her family. The defendant no. 1 with pre plan to grab the share of the plaintiff i.e. suit property, had got two electricity meters installed in the property of his mother Smt. Dropti Devi, in his name in the year 2008 and 2014 respectively and out of which one meter is installed on the wall of the suit property.
3. Later on, when the plaintiff applied for a electricity meter in her name with the defendant no. 3, it was rejected on the ground that a meter is already installed in the suit property, so another meter cannot be installed and suggested that if the electricity meter in the name of defendant no. 1 was removed then a meter in the name of plaintiff can be installed in the suit property. After that, the plaintiff requested the defendants to remove the electricity meter but despite repeated requests the defendants did not agree on it. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 and 2 started interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property of the plaintiff Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 2/17 and also started pressuring the plaintiff to vacate the suit property. The defendants also abused and gave beatings to the plaintiff several times and plaintiff filed written complaint with the SHO PS Sultanpuri. The plaintiff also sent a legal notice dated 06.04.2015 to the defendants but defendant no. 1 and 3 did not give any reply. Defendant no. 2 gave reply to the notice in which she stated that she is the owner of the suit property and the electricity meter installed in the suit property is in the name of defendant no. 1, but she refused to remove the said meter from the suit property. Therefore, present suit has been filed for seeking relief of mandatory injunction whereby defendants be directed to remove the electricity meter from the wall of the suit property and also for restraining the defendant no. 1 and 2 and their agents and legal representatives etc. from entering into or dispossessing or from creating any third party interest in the suit property and in interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.
4. In the written statement filed by defendant no. 1 and 2, it is stated that the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit nor have any claim to the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction because she has no specific ownership right over the suit property. The defendant no. 2 is the absolute, rightful and lawful owner of the suit property, which she purchased from its previous owner Smt. Dropti Devi, by virtue of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Possession Letter and Receipt etc., all dated 05.03.2013. The plaintiff was allowed to reside in the suit property only on license basis by the defendant no. 1 and 2 but now plaintiff has filed the present suit with the intention to grab the suit property. The suit property was already purchased by the defendant no. 2 from her mother in law Smt. Dropti Devi on dated 05.03.2013, which is prior to the alleged purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff from Smt. Dropti Devi. Once the suit property has already been sold against a valid consideration to the defendant no. 2 on Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 3/17 05.03.2013, then Smt. Dropti Devi was left with no right in the suit property, hence the documents dated 13.05.2013 allegedly to be executed by Smt. Dropti in favour of the plaintiff are invalid and are not maintainable. The electricity meter is installed since long and the plaintiff has no concern with the same. All the remaining averments of the plaint were denied.
5. In the written statement filed by defendant no. 3 / TPDDL, it is stated that request no. 2007354266 was cancelled as it was found on inspection of the suit property that there already exists an electricity connection bearing CA No. 060006750610 and there was no separate dwelling unit. The connection bearing CA No. 060006750610 in the name of Sh. Sushil Kumar was energized on 20.05.2007. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied by the defendant no. 3.
6. In the replication to the written statement of defendant no. 1 and 2, plaintiff stated that plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property. It is also stated that Smt. Dropti Devi filed a complaint case against the defendants in which the concerned Court had called for a status report from the police, in which Smt. Dropti Devi gave a statement to police that the dispute of the property has been sorted out by way of partition in which equal share has been given to both of her son and after that the complaint case was withdrawn by Smt. Dropti Devi. Further, the plaintiff denied all the averments made in the written statement.
7. In the replication to the written statement of defendant no. 3 / TPDDL, plaintiff stated that the defendant no. 3 failed to mention on basis of what documents, it has installed the meter in the name of defendant no. 1 in the suit property and stated that Sushil Kumar has no right over the property.
Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 4/17
8. On completion of pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 06.10.2015 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP
3. Relief.
9. Plaintiff has examined two witnesses in support of her case. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and filed her affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW1/1. She relied and exhibited the following documents: (1) GPA , Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Receipt and Will as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/F respectively.
(2) Site Plan as Ex. PW1/G ;
(3) Photographs of electricity meter as Ex. PW1/I ;
(4) Acknowledgement receipt of electricity meter as Ex. PW1/J. (5) Copy of complaint dated 04.06.2014 and 29.07.2014 as Mark A and Mark B respectively.
(6) Electricity bill dated 19.04.2013 as Mark C and ;
(7) Postal receipts, legal notice and reply to the legal notice are Ex. PW1/M to Ex. PW1/Q. In her crossexamination, she deposed that the documents were executed in his favour at Rohini Courts however she did not remember the name of the witness who put their signatures at the time of execution of document. She had purchased the suit property from her mother in law for the consideration amount of Rs. 3 lacs. She admitted the fact that when she came to reside in the suit premises, the Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 5/17 electricity meter had already been installed in the suit property in the name of defendant no. 1. She voluntarily deposed that she never used the electricity from the said meter and living without electricity. Her mother in law filed a criminal complaint before Court against defendant no. 1 and 2 but said complaint was withdrawn by her mother in law. Her sister in law i.e. defendant no. 2 got another meter installed in her portion in her name. She did not make any application for restoration of the electricity in the present suit. She admitted that Smt. Draupti Devi had executed the ownership documents of the suit property in favour of defendant no. 2 i.e. Smt. Pawan Devi but voluntarily deposed that those documents were got executed dishonestly by defendant no. 2. She denied the suggestion that she is residing in the suit property with the permission of defendant no. 1 and 2 as a licensee and is not having any ownership right. She further denied the suggestion that she had prepared the ownership documents for grabbing the property of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and denied that she is deposing falsely.
10. In order to prove her case, plaintiff has examined her mother in law as PW2 who has tendered her affidavit as Ex. PW2/A and relied upon complaint dated 14.10.2014 as Mark A. In her evidence affidavit, she deposed that she is the owner of the total plot and plaintiff purchased the suit property from her on 13.05.2013 for an amount of Rs. 3 lacs. She kept the ownership documents of the total plot with defendant no. 1 and 2 but defendant no. 2 in collusion with defendant no. 1 prepared forged documents of ownership of the total plot in her name. She has not sold any portion of the total plot to the defendant no. 1 or defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 1 and 2 in order to grab the suit property got installed electricity meter in their name.
In her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that she executed property document in respect of the suit property in favour of Smt. Pawan Devi.
Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 6/17 She executed property documents in favour of Smt. Raj kumari in respect of half portion of the suit property but she could not recall how much money was paid by the Smt. Raj kumari to her at the time of execution of the documents. But when she was confronted with the documents Ex. PW2/X (colly) i.e. chain of documents executed by PW2 in favour of defendant no. 2, she admitted that Ex. PW2/X (colly) bears her signatures at Point A to PointI and she executed the documents Ex. PW2/X (colly) on 05.03.2013 in favour of her daughter in law Smt. Pawan Devi i.e. Defendant no. 2 on 12.05.2013.
She executed documents Ex. PW1/A to PW1/F regarding the suit property in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari in presence of two persons but she do not remember their name. She admitted the fact that the electricity meters are in the name of defendant no. 1 and 2 and were installed with her consent. She know for a long time back that the both electricity meters are in the name of defendant no. 1 and 2 and she has not made any complaint to the TPDDL or other Authority for removal of both electricity meters. She has no problem with both electricity meters.
Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed.
11. Defendants examined themselves to prove their case. Defendant no. 1 Sushil Sahani examined himself as DW1 and filed his affidavit as Ex. DW1/A and relied upon a document Mark A. In his cross examination, he deposed that his mother is having only one house i.e. total plot in Delhi and she transferred it in favour of his wife. No family settlement ever took place between him, his brother and mother. He admitted signatures of his wife at Point A on Ex. DW2/P1. He is residing in only one part of the total property consisting one room, kitchen, latrine and bathroom and in the other part the family of his younger brother is residing. He do not remember as to when the total property was purchased by Smt. Dropti Devi. He admitted the fact Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 7/17 that the total property was self acquired property of Smt. Dropti Devi and purchased by her own funds. He denied the suggestion that the original papers with respect to the total property were lying with him. He further denied the suggestion that Dropti Devi gave him the original documents to keep in safe custody. He further denied the suggestion that the total property was partitioned in the year 1999 by virtue of family settlement dated 26.12.1999. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to grab the suit property from his mother. He further denied the suggestion that his wife had prepared false and fabricated documents to grab the suit property.
12. Defendant no. 2 has examined herself as DW2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A and has relied upon the following documents :
(1) I Card as Ex. DW2/1 (OSR) ;
(2) Photocopy of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Deed of Will, Possession Letter, Receipt dated 05.03.2013 as Ex. DW2/2 (colly) ; (3) Previous title documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit, all dated 07.09.1987 in favour of Smt. Dropti Devi as Ex. PW2/3 (colly).;
(4) Electricity bills of CA No. 60006750610 and 60018547004 as Mark B and Mark C ;
(5) Complaint dated 13.08.2014 as Mark D ;
(6) Bill issued by R.K. Electrical dated 10.05.2004 and 16.04.2004 as Mark E and Mark F ;
(7) Copy of the Caste Certificate as Ex. PW2/8 (OSR) and ; (8) Copy of caste certificate of daughter of deponent as Ex. PW2/9 (OSR).
In her cross examination, she deposed that she is not aware that Smt. Dropti Devi is having 12 bighas agricultural land and one house in her native village. Out Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 8/17 of the abovesaid 12 bighas land, some of the land is in her possession and some of the land is in possession of plaintiff. The abovesaid settlement with respect to the abovesaid land was concluded in writing. She did not remember whether the abovesaid settlement was written on 26.12.1999. She admitted that property in question is the only property Smt. Dropti is having till today in Delhi and property situated in Delhi was also divided between the sons of Smt. Dropti Devi as per the settlement Ex. DW2/P1. She admitted that the property in question was divided by a wall and both portion are having area of 36 sq. yds each and she is residing in one of the portion and in another portion, plaintiff is residing. Her mother in law never gave the title documents of the suit property to keep it in safe custody. She voluntarily deposed that she handed over these documents after executing the sale document in her favour.
Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed.
13. Final arguments heard on behalf of both the parties. Case file perused.
Issue wise finding Issue No. 1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed ? OPP
14. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, her mother in law, Smt. Dropti Devi was the owner of the total property measuring 72 sq. yds vide registered agreement dated 07.12.1987 and on 26.12.1999 Smt. Dropti Devi entered into a family settlement Ex. DW2/P1 as per which the total property was to be divided equally between her two sons i.e. husband of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 (husband of defendant no. 2). But defendant no. 1 and 2 created forged chain of documents i.e. agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, Will and Possession letter all dated 05.03.2013 of the total property executed in favor of Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 9/17 defendant no. 2. Later on, Smt. Dropti Devi transferred suit property i.e. half portion of total property in favour of plaintiff through agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, Will and Possession letter all dated 12.05.2013.
Whereas as per defendant no. 1 and 2, Smt. Dropti Devi was the owner of the total property and on 05.03.2013, she transferred the total property in favour of defendant no. 2.
So, both the parties admitted that Smt. Dropti Devi was the previous owner of the total property through whom they are deriving their title to the suit property.
15. The ownership of suit property or the title of suit property is not in question before the Court and neither Court is making any effort to decide it. But, in the opinion of the Court, a general discussion qua the ownership over suit property is necessary to decide the issues framed in the present suit as plaintiff is claiming right to get electricity meter installed in her name in the suit property.
16. The Ex. DW2/P1 is the alleged family settlement which was entered into on 26.12.1999. The Ex. DW2/P1 was not brought on the record by the plaintiff during her evidence but brought on record during the cross examination of defendants. So, this document Ex. DW2/P1 was brought to the notice of defendants for the first time during their cross examination and both the defendants only admitted to the extent that Ex. DW2/P1 bears signature of defendant no. 2 at PointA. Interestingly at Point A where signature of defendant no. 2 are present the date is written as 27.12.2011, whereas the Ex. DW2/P1 was allegedly executed on 26.12.1999. Both the date and year at PointA are different from the date and year on which the Ex. DW2/P1 was allegedly executed. This discrepancy alongwith timing of production of Ex. DW2/P1 casts a serious doubt over the authenticity of the Ex. DW2/P1.
Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 10/17 Except the admission of defendants, as to presence of signature of defendant no. 2 at PointA on Ex. DW2/P1, no other evidence was brought on the record by the plaintiff to proved the Ex. DW2/P1. Ex. DW2/P1 was allegedly executed by Smt. Dropti Devi, mother in law of plaintiff, whom plaintiff examined as plaintiff witness no. 2 but the said document was never brought to the notice of PW2 and was not proved on record by PW2. Further, plaintiff did not examine any of the panch witnesses in whose presence Ex. DW2/P1 was allegedly executed. All this things raise serious doubts over the genuineness of Ex. DW2/P1 and therefore, in the opinion of the Court, same cannot be relied upon.
Further, even if, Court considers the Ex. DW2/P1, even then, it is just a family settlement and family settlement can only be done to settle the already existing rights of parties in the property. It cannot create a new right in an immovable property in favour of anyone, that is why family settlement is not considered as a mode of transfer of immovable property. As the total property was sole property of Smt. Dropti Devi, therefore, by way of Ex. DW2/P1 no right in total property can be created in favour of either of plaintiff or of defendants.
Therefore, Ex. DW2/P1 does not create any right in favour of either plaintiff or defendants and neither its extinguishes right of Smt. Dropti Devi in the total property.
17. In addition to Ex. DW2/P1, the plaintiff in order to show her ownership of the suit property relied upon Ex. PW1/A to PW1/F i.e. the copy of chain of documents in respect of purchase of suit property i.e. agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, Will and Possession letter all dated 12.05.2013.
Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 11/17 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana," Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13917 of 2009,has held that at: "Para 15. Therefore, a SA/GPA/Will transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain V. Canara Bank 94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transaction by way of SA/GPA/Will are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/ Will transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/Will transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law."
"Para 16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of 'GPA Sales' or 'SA/GPA/Will transfer' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts 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 property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal in Municipal or Revenue Records.
What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. 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."
"Para 18. We have merely drawn attention to and reiterated the well settled legal position that SA/GPA/Will Transactions are not 'transfer' or sales' and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale. Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title. The said 'SA/GPA/Will transactions' may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act. If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/ leases by Development Authorities. We make it clear that if the documents relating to 'SA/GPA/Will transactions' has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 12/17 authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision."
The abovesaid judgement was passed on 15.05.2009, therefore, after 15.05.2009, no ownership can be created in an immovable property only on the basis of agreement to sell, GPA and Will. So, in the view of the above decision all these documents i.e. Ex. PW1/A to PW1/F filed by the plaintiff does not show her ownership / title of the suit property. Similar is the case of defendant no. 2, documents Ex. DW2/2 (colly) does not show her ownership of the total property.
Therefore, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant no. 2 have ownership over the suit property or over the total property respectively. The ownership right of the total property still vests in Smt. Dropti Devi.
18. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant no. 2 have ownership over the suit property but it is admitted by both the parties that plaintiff is in the possessions of the suit property and electricity connection bearing CA No. 060006750610 installed at the suit property is in the name of defendant no. 1. Now, let see what are the guidelines for transfer of existing electricity connection as per the DERC Regulations.
The Point17 of ChapterIII of DERC (supply Code and performance Standards) Regulations, 2017 deals with the transfer of the connection and its relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow : Point17 : Existing connections: (1) Transfer of connection
(i) If any applicant wants transfer of connection due to any reason such as change of consumer's name due to change in ownership or occupancy of property, transfer to Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 13/17 legal heir, etc. he shall apply to the licensee in the prescribed format as notified in the Commission's Orders.
The Point3 of ChapterIII of DERC (supply Code and performance Standards) Regulations, 2017 deals with the proof of ownership or occupancy of the premises transfer and its relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow : Point 3 : proof of ownership or occupancy of the premises :
(i) Certified copy of the title deed.
(ii) Certified copy of registered conveyance deed.
(iii) General power of Attorney (GPA).
.........
........
There is no change in the ownership of the suit property but there is change in occupancy as it is admitted by both the parties that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff is consuming the electricity supplied to the suit property through electricity connection bearing CA No. 060006750610. As per the DERC Regulations an existing connection can be transferred due to change in occupancy of property.
In accordance to Point 3 of ChapterIII of DERC Regulations, plaintiff only have GPA to show her occupancy of the suit property.
19. Smt. Dropti Devi executed Ex. DW2/2 (colly) on 05.03.2013 which includes GPA in favour of defendant no. 2 and executed Ex. PW1/A to PW1/F on 12.05.2013 which includes GPA in favour of plaintiff. In GPA dated 05.03.2013 at Point13, it is mentioned that it is an irrevocable attorney and at Point3, it is mentioned that attorney is given to apply and get the electricity connection. Combined reading of all the documents of Ex. DW2/2 (colly) shows that GPA Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 14/17 dated 05.03.2013 has been executed in favour of defendant no. 2 for a consideration amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs. Therefore, GPA dated 05.03.2013 is an irrevocable attorney given for consideration coupled with an interest, therefore, as per Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the authority through GPA dated 05.03.2013 cannot be terminated in absence of any express contract to the prejudice of interest of defendant no. 2. No express contract has been brought on record to show that authority/agency created in favour of defendant no. 2 has been terminated. As GPA dated 05.03.2013 is not terminated, therefore, GPA dated 12.05.2013 executed in favour of plaintiff has no effect for getting the electricity connection in name of plaintiff.
20. Further the section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that when a person purpotes to create by transfer at different time right in respect of the same immovable property, each later created right shall be subject to the rights previously created. The set of documents executed by Smt. Dropti Devi in favour of defendant no. 2 are dated 05.03.2013 whereas the set of documents executed by her in favour of plaintiff are dated 12.05.2013. Hence, by virtue of principal enunciated in Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a document executed in favour of defendant no. 2 being prior in time would prevail over the documents executed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit property.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, Ex. PW1/A i.e. GPA dated 12.05.2013 has no effect, therefore, issue no. 1 decided against the plaintiff.
21. It is admitted that plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property and electricity is being supplied to the suit property through electricity connection bearing CA No. 060006750610 which is in the name of defendant no. 1.
Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 15/17 Electricity being a necessary requirement for living a dignified life, therefore, defendant no. 3 is directed not to disconnect the electricity supply to CA No. 060006750610 subject to the condition that plaintiff clears all the dues of electricity supply pertaining to CA No. 060006750610 and continue to pay the electricity bills as and when they are generated. Further, defendant no. 1 and 2 also restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply to the electricity connection bearing CA No. 060006750610.
Issue No. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP
22. As per the written statement of defendants no. 1 and 2, plaintiff is staying in the suit property as a licensee, therefore, it is admitted that plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit property for last many years. It is settled law that the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law, he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands. It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions. Illustratively, Court may refer to Munish Ram and Ors, Vs. Delhi Administration (1968) 2 SCR 455, Puran Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 16/17 (1975) 4 SCC 518 and Ram Rattan and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC.
Therefore, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and 2 are restrained from entering, dispossessing or interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property of plaintiff without following the due process of law.
Relief (A) Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and defendant no. 1 and 2 are restrained from entering, dispossessing or interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property of plaintiff without following the due process of law. VIPIN KHARB Digitally signed by VIPIN KHARB Announced in the open Court (Vipin Kharb) Date: 2019.04.15 17:03:56 +0530 on day of 09.04.2019 Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Judge, Small Causes Court cum Guardian Judge, NorthWest District, Rohini, Delhi.
Suit No. 60446/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Sushil Sahani & Ors. 17/17