Delhi District Court
Smt. Shanti Devi vs Satya Parkash on 2 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMEER BAJPAI, JSCCCUMASCJCUM
GUARDIAN JUDGE (WEST): DELHI
Suit No. 494/08
Unique Case I.D. No. 02401C0008272006
1. Smt. Shanti Devi
Wd/o Late Sh. Mehar Singh
S/o Mai Ram
R/o H. No. M15, Gali No. 1,
Sastri Nagar, Delhi110052.
2. Raj Singh
S/o Late Sh. Mai Ram
R/o H. No. N54, Gali No. 4.
Sastri Nagar, Delhi110002. .........Plaintiffs
Versus
Satya Parkash
C/o Om Dharam Kanta
Gurudwara Siraspur Road,
Village Siraspur, Delhi. ......... Defendant
Date of filing of the suit : 03.01.2006
Date of reserving judgment : 14.05.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.07.2013
.
J U D G M E N T
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction with prayer to restrain the defendant from interfering with the peaceful ownership and possession of the suit property.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present suit are succinctly given here as under:
Suit No. 494/08 Page No. 6/1
3. As per case of the plaintiffs, they are in relation to each other. The plaintiff no. 1 is the widow of real elder brother of the plaintiff no. 2 and they are the owners in possession of the land comprising of Khasra no. 54 situated at Village Siraspur, Delhi. The plaintiff no. 1 purchased the land measuring 400 Sq. Yds. through a registered sale deed dated 15.10.1981 from one Sh. Shyam Lal S/o Sh. Mathura Parshad R/o H. No. B1751, Shastri Nagar, Delhi110052 and from another person namely Sh. Gordhan Dass Sharma S/o Sh. Baru Singh R/o H. No. A462, Shastri Nagar, Delhi110052. Similarly plaintiff no. 2 Sh. Raj Singh and another person namely Sh. Kuldeep Chand S/o Sh. Thakar Dass R/o H. No. 17/157, Gali No. 6, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi purchased the land abutting to the above said land of Smt. Shanti Devi measuring 400 Sq. Yds. out of the Khasra no. 54 through a registered sale deed dated 03.05.1983 from Sh. Gordhan Dass Sharma S/o Sh. Baru Singh R/o H. No. A465, Shastri Nagar, Delhi110052. Both the properties have been merged into one by both the plaintiffs in shape of one common plot. Sh. Kuldeep Chand then alienated his 1/2 share out of the plot measuring 400 Sq. Yds. i.e. 200 Sq. Yds. many years ago through some sale deed in favour of some other person and both the plaintiffs are now absolute owner in possession of the land measuring 600 Sq. Yds. It is further submitted that the defendant has got no right, title or interest in the said property and the defendant has nourished a personal grudge against the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the defendant is bent upon to interfere with the peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiffs property and illegally intending to murge the same in his own property and the defendant has been intending to take undue Suit No. 494/08 Page No. 6/2 advantage of the poverty and old age of both the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have requested the defendant several times not to enterfere with their peaceful ownership and possession over the suit property but the defendant is adament and he has refused to accede to the requests made by the plaintiffs.
4. The defendant has filed his written statement in which, he has taken various preliminary objections and denied the averments made in the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiffs are neither the owner of the property in question nor in possession of the same. It is further stated that the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from the Court and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is without cause of action and the same is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is further stated that the plaint is bad for non joinder of parties and the plaintiffs have not come before the Court with clean hands. It is further stated that the suit of the plaintiffs has been filed only to grab the valuable family property of the defendant.
5. The plaintiff has also filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, in which he has denied the objections as raised by the defendant and reiterated the contentions made in the plaint.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the suit property falls in Khasra No. 54/53? Onus to prove on parties.
Suit No. 494/08 Page No. 6/3
2. If the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? OPP
3. Relief.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused material on record. My issue wise decision is as under:
ISSUE NO. 1 & 2
8. Firstly, the plaintiff was suppose to prove that the suit property falls in Khasra no. 54. The defendant in his written statement avers that the suit property as shown by the plaintiff does not fall in Khasra No. 54, as from nowhere any part of Khasra No. 54 faces Gurdwara road as shown by the plaintiff in his site plan. The defendant in this regard relies on Aks Sijra Ex. DW1/5. When the defendant has disputed the identity of the suit property, the plaintiff was suppose to prove its exact location and to clarify its identity. Besides herself, the plaintiff has examined PW2 the Patwari, who has just proved a Khatoni pertaining to year 197374 in respect of Khasra No. 54 measuring 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas, showing the Bhumidhari in the name of Sh. Attar Singh and others. It is seen that Khasra no. 54 is 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas whereas the suit property is just 600 sq. yards. The plaintiff must have proved as to exactly where, in Khasra No. 54, their plot situates, but she has failed. The Aks Sijra as proved by the defendant shows that the road, which according to the defendant is the Gurdwara Suit No. 494/08 Page No. 6/4 road, do not touch any of the faces of Khasra no. 54. The plaintiff no.1 has miserably failed to clarify the location of the suit property and to prove the correctness of the site plan. In my opinion the plaintiffs have clearly failed to prove that the suit property falls in Khasra no. 54. There are some facts which are important to be mentioned, as came in the crossexamination of the plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiff states that she cannot tell as to what lies in the North, East, West and South side of the suit property. Further, she does not know Sh. Kuldip Chand. Further, the land purchased by Sh. Kuldip Chand and Sh. Raj Singh was 1000 sq. yds. Further, she does not remember the Khasra number of the land as purchased by Sh.Kuldip Chand and Sh. Raj Singh. Further, she does not know against whom she has filed the present suit; further who is Sh.Satya Prakash, further the land of Sh. Satya Prakash adjacent to her land, further, she cannot tell the dimensions of the suit property and further at one place she states that she does not know Sh. Satya Prakash whereas at other place she states that once Sh.Satya Prakash quarreled with her on 02.01.2006. It is very surprising that all these facts are very important and must have been in the knowledge of the plaintiff no.1 but she is ignorant about them. In my opinion, clearly, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit property falls in Khasra no. 54. These issues are therefore decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs. RELIEF :
9. In view of my findings on these issues, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Suit No. 494/08 Page No. 6/5
10.No order as to costs.
11.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12.File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today the 02nd July, 2013.
(SAMEER BAJPAI) JSCCCumASCJCum GUARDIAN JUDGE (West) 02.07.2013 Suit No. 494/08 Page No. 6/6