Delhi District Court
Sh. Pooran Masi @ Punwasi vs Sh. Prahlad on 16 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH A.K. AGRAWAL CIVIL JUDGE01, WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SCJ No. 610737/16
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of institution of suit : 26.06.2014
Date of reservation of Judgment : 08.12.2016
Date of announcement of Judgment : 16.12.2016
Sh. Pooran Masi @ Punwasi
S/o Sh. Phangu Majhi @ Fagu
R/o House No. B43/14,
Baprola Vihar, New Delhi 110043
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1 Sh. Prahlad
S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh
R/o House No. 487,
Village Baprola, P.O Najafgarh,
New Delhi 110043
2 Sh. Yusuf Khan
S/o Sh. Babu Khan
R/o D16, Gali No. 13,
Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar,
New Delhi 110043. ......Defendants
SCJ NO. 608770/16
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, POSSESSION AND
ARREARS OF RENT AND MESNE PROFIT
Date of institution of suit : 13.08.2014
Date of reservation of Judgment : 08.12.2016
SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18
and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi
Date of announcement of Judgment : 16.12.2016
Sh. Prahlad
S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh
R/o House No. 487,
Village Baprola, P.O Najafgarh,
New Delhi 110043.
.........Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh. Pooran Masi @ Punwasi
S/o Sh. Phangu Majhi @ Fagu
R/o House No. B43/14,
Baprola Vihar,
New Delhi 110043.
............Defendant
Vide this common Judgment, I will dispose off two suits, one suit
bearing SCJ No. 610737/16 titled as Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anr. and
another Suit bearing SCJ No. 608770/16 titled as Prahlad vs Pooran Masi @
Punwasi.
Case of Pooran Masi
1.As per Pooran Masi, his wife Smt. Durga Devi had purchased a plot of land bearing no.73, in BlockD, out of Khasra No.43/14, area measuring 50 sq. yrds, situated in village Baprola, now colony known as Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar, New Delhi 110043, alongwith Smt. Maina Devi W/o Sh. Padohee Lal (i.e. wife of Pooran Masi's brother) in the year 1998. Thereafter Smt. Durga Devi and Smt. Maina Devi raised construction on their respective portions of 25 sq. yrds each, out of the aforesaid property. Later on 15.07.2002, SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi Smt. Durga Devi sold her property to Pooran Masi through General Power of Attorney duly registered and accordingly, he became the absolute owner of aforesaid built up property measuring 25 sq. yrds., hereinafter called the "suit property".
2. It is further stated that in the month of January 2014, he (Pooran Masi) was in need of money for marriage of his daughter and he came in contact with Yusuf Khan (defendant no.2 in Pooran Masi's suit), who took Pooran Masi to Prahlad to arrange the loan. He (Prahlad) assured Pooran Masi that he was having good connections with bank officials and private financiers and he (Prahlad) will get loan arranged for Pooran Masi by mortgaging the title documents of suit property.
3. It is further stated that on 22.01.2014, Prahlad called Pooran Masi with all the original papers of the suit property and asked Pooran Masi to put his signatures and thumb impressions on certain papers. As Pooran Masi was an illiterate person, he put his signatures and thumb impression in good faith on those papers on the assurance of Prahlad and Yusuf Khan, for the purpose of grant of loan of Rs. 5,00,000/. Yusuf Khan also became witness on the said documents and both of them also assured Pooran Masi that he will get aforesaid loan of Rs. 5,00,000/ by last of week of March, 2014. Prahlad also took all the original title documents of the suit property from Pooran Masi, at the time of getting his signatures, on the pretext of submitting it in the Bank. Prahlad also charged Rs. 15,000/ from Pooran Masi towards the bank charges.
4. Further states that in the last week of March 2014, Pooran Masi approached Prahlad and Yusuf for getting the sanctioned loan but both of them SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. On 28.04.2014, they told Pooran Masi that the title documents of Pooran Masi were not registered Sale deed and requisite stamp duty has also not been paid to the Government and so technical problem had arisen in sanction of loan. They however told Pooran Masi that they were trying their level best to get loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ sanctioned through some private financiers. When Pooran Masi contacted them on 28.05.2014, they did not give any satisfactory response and again postponed the matter. However on 12.06.2014, they showed their inability to arrange the loan amount. Thereafter, Pooran Masi requested Prahlad to return back all his original title documents of the suit property along with Rs.15,000/ as Prahlad had failed to arrange the loan amount but Prahlad did not do so.
5. It is further stated that on 24.06.2014, instead of returning back all the original documents of suit property to Pooran Masi, Prahlad started claiming himself to be the owner of suit property, on the basis of documents on which they (Prahlad and Yusuf) had fraudulently obtained signatures and thumb impression of Pooran Masi, on the pretext of submitting them with Bank for sanction of loan. Prahlad also threatened Pooran Masi asking him to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of suit property to him within two days, failing which Prahlad would take forcible possession of the suit property. Prahlad further threatened Pooran Masi to kill him and his family member, if he (Pooran Masi) dared to approach the police or any other government authority.
6. Hence suit bearing SCJ No. 610737/16 was filed by Pooran Masi with the prayer to pass a decree of permanent injunction against Prahlad and SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi Yusuf Khan thereby restraining them, their associates, agents, etc., from selling, transferring, alienating, creating third party interest in the suit property, and for a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing Prahlad to hand over all the original documents of title i.e. General Power of Attorney, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt and Possession Letter, duly attested by notary public on 15.07.2002.
Case of Prahlad
7. As per Prahlad, in the month of January 2014, Pooran Masi was in dire need of money, hence, he approached him for the sale of suit property, upon which Prahlad agreed to purchase it for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/. He paid the entire sale consideration to Pooran Masi and thereafter Pooran Masi also executed relevant sale documents such as Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, Letter of Possession and receipt, all dated 22.01.2014, in favour of Prahlad. Pooran Masi also handed over all the previous original documents of suit property to Prahlad on 22.01.2014.
8. Further states that Pooran Masi requested him (Prahlad) for grant of some time for handing over the vacant physical possession of suit property. On his request, Prahlad agreed for the same and vide Rent Agreement dated 22.01.2014 executed between the parties, Pooran Masi agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/ to Prahlad. In this manner Pooran Masi handed over notional possession of suit property to Prahlad. Thereafter, Pooran Masi also paid rent for two months only i.e. from 22.01.2014 to 21.03.2014 and then stopped paying the same.
SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi
9. Further states that a sum of Rs.20,000/ as balance towards arrears of rent and Rs.5,000/ towards electricity charges, was due from Pooran Masi, which he is yet to pay. Despite repeated requests, he failed to pay the same and even threatened Prahlad with dire consequences. A police complaint dated 29.06.2014 was also made before SHO PS Ranhola upon which Pooran Masi threatened to hand over possession of suit property to third person. Thereupon Prahlad served a notice dated 04.07.2014 upon Pooran Masi regarding termination of tenancy but he failed to comply with the same and did not vacate the suit property or paid the arrears of rent and electricity.
10. Hence, Prahlad has filed suit bearing no.608770/16 claiming possession of suit property on the basis of termination of tenancy. Prahlad is also claiming arrears of rent and electricity and future damages from Pooran Masi. He is also claiming Permanent injunction to restrain Pooran Masi from handing over physical possession of suit property to any third person.
Case of Yusuf Khan ( defendant no.2 in SCJ No. 610737/16/14)
11. Yusuf had filed a joint Written Statement alongwith Prahlad in SCJ No. 610737/16, wherein he has also taken the same defence as taken by Prahlad. He also contended that the suit was bad for misjoinder of necessary party as he was not a necessary party to the suit.
Replication was filed by both the parties in their respective suits reaffirming the contents of their plaint.
ISSUES framed in SCJ No. 610737/16 and evidence led in this suit SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi
12. Following issues have been framed in this suit vide Order dated 06.05.2015 :
1. Whether the plaintiff (Pooran Masi) is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff (Pooran Masi) is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties ? OPD2
4. Relief.
13. In plaintiff evidence, Pooran Masi has examined himself as PW1. In his evidence, following documents were exhibited :
" Affidavit in evidence of Pooran Masi is Ex. PW 1/A wherein the averments made in his plaint have been reiterated. Documents exhibited in his crossexamination are GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit, Possession Letter and Will, all dated 22.01.2014 are Ex. PW1/D1 (colly.), Copy of Rent agreement dated 22.01.2014 is Ex. PW1/D2 and legal notice alongwith AD card is Ex. PW 1/D3."
14. Pooran Masi was duly crossexamined and thereafter PE was closed. In defendant evidence, Prahlad examined himself as DW1. In his evidence, following documents were exhibited : "The affidavit in evidence of DW1 is Ex. DW1/A, Copy of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will all dated 22.01.2014 are Ex. DW1/2 (colly), Copy of complaint dated 29.06.2014 is Ex. DW1/4, legal demand SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi notice dated 04.07.2014 is Ex. DW1/5, AD Card is Ex. DW 1/6 and the previous chain of all documents of suit property are Ex. DW 1/7 (colly)."
He was also crossexamined and thereafter DE was closed. ISSUES framed in SCJ No. 608770/16 and evidence led in this suit.
15. Vide Order dated 24.02.2015, the following issues were framed in this suit :
1. Whether the plaintiff (Prahlad) is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff (Prahlad) is entitled for decree of possession as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff (Prahlad) is entitled for arrears of rent & electricity dues of Rs. 25,000/ as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff (Prahlad) is entitled to future amages/mesne profits @ Rs.500/ per day as prayed for? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff (Prahlad) is entitled to interest pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a.? OPP.
6. Whether the defendant (Pooran Masi) is the owner of suit property ? OPD.
7. Relief
16. In plaintiff evidence, Prahlad has examined two witnesses. PW1 is Prahlad himself and PW2 is Mohd. Yusuf Khan. In their testimonies, following documents were exhibited : SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi "The affidavit in evidence of Prahlad is Ex. PW 1/A wherein the averements made in his plaint were reiterated, copy of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will all dated 22/01/2014 already exhibited as Ex. DW1/2 (colly) in connected suit, copy of rent agreement dated 22.01.2014 already exhibited as PW1/D2, copy of complaint dated 29.06.2014 is Ex. DW1/4, legal demand notice dated 04.07.2014 is Ex. DW 1/5, AD card is Ex. PW1/6, previous chain of all documents of suit property are Ex. PW1/7 (colly) and site plan is Ex. PW1/1 and Photo copy of Adhar Card is Ex. PW 2/1."
17. Both the witnesses were crossexamined and thereafter PE was closed. In defendant evidence, Sh. Pooran Masi is examined himself as DW1. In his testimony following documents were exhibited :
"The affidavit of DW1 is exhibited as Ex. DW1/A, Photo copies of documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit, Possession letter and Will all dated 22.01.2014 are Ex. DW1/P1 (colly), Photo copy of original Rent Agreement dated 22.01.2014 is Ex. DW1/P2 and legal notice alongwith AD card is Ex. DW 1/P3."
18. Pooran Masi was crossexamined and thereafter DE was closed. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of both the parties. Counsel for Sh. Prahlad has relied on judgments in case titled as Ramesh Chand vs Suresh Chand RFA No.358/2000 and Hardip Kaur vs Kailash & Anr. RFA No. SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi 648/2006, both passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
19. I have now considered arguments from both sides and perused the evidence on record. There is some error in marking of the exhibits, hence documents are referred to by the exhibits as mentioned in suit bearing SCJ No. 610737/16 so as to maintain uniformity, except the Site plan, police complaint and previous chain of documents which have been exhibited only in SCJ No. 608770/16 as Ex. PW1/1. My issuewise findings are as under :
20. ISSUE NO. 1 AND 2 in SCJ No. 610737/16
1. Whether the plaintiff (Pooran Masi) is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ?
2. Whether the plaintiff (Pooran Masi) is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ?
Both these issues are taken together as findings on both these issues are based on common facts and evidences. The onus to prove both these issues was upon Pooran Masi.
21. Pooran Masi is seeking relief that Prahlad and Yusuf be restrained from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property and Prahlad be also directed to hand over original documents of the suit property i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, dated 15.07.2002 etc. As already stated above, as per Pooran Masi, he was in need of loan in the last April, 2014 for the purposes of marriage of his daughter, so he approached Yusuf and Prahlad for the same and Prahlad took all the original title documents of suit property from him on the pretext of getting loan sanctioned but did not do so. Infact Prahlad also took his signatures and thumb impressions on certain SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi documents on the pretext that the said documents were required to be submitted in bank for loan. On the other hand, Prahlad contends that he had purchased the suit property from Pooran Masi and has relied on those very documents as title documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1 about which Pooran Masi claims to have got wrongly signed by him and thumb impression put by him at the instance of Prahlad, on the pretext of getting loan sanctioned from bank. Both the parties are however relying on documents such as GPA, Agreement to sell, etc. as proof of their respective title, but these documents are not valid deeds of conveyance of title.
22. From the averments made in the respective pleadings, it is quite evident that Pooran Masi was all throughout aware of the fact that Prahlad had obtained his signatures and thumb impression on certain documents on the pretext of getting loan sanctioned and those documents were still in possession of Prahlad and could be easily misused, however Pooran Masi did not take any legal action against him nor made any police complaint against Prahlad and Yusuf for their alleged cheating committed against him. Any prudent person under similar circumstances would have immediately taken steps to prevent misuse of those documents and would have also made a police complaint or filed criminal case against such a person. Further Prahlad was also in possession of original property documents in the name of Pooran Masi and so there was all the more reason for Pooran Masi to have been more deligent. Infact this carelessnees on the part of Pooran Masi itself creates a doubt on his contention regarding him having signed documents Ex. PW1/D1 towards requirement of loan.
SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi
23. Furthermore, even in this suit Pooran Masi has admitted his signatures and thumb impressions on alleged title documents Ex. PW1/D1 which are executed in favour of Prahlad. However for reasons best known to him, Pooran Masi has not even claimed the relief of declaration that those documents Ex. PW1/D1 be declared as null and void or even has sought their cancellation. Till the time those documents are declared as null and void, they do bear testimony of creation of certain right and interest in favour of Prahlad (though not an evidence of transfer of title of suit property), as consideration has also been allegedly paid by Prahlad to Pooran Masi, as evidenced in Agreement to sell and Receipt dated 22.01.2014. Under such circumstances, without seeking relief of declaration, a simplicitor suit of injunction was not maintainable and hence the above reliefs cannot be awarded to Pooran Masi. Under such circumstances, even appreciation of limited evidence of Pooran Masi to prove the so called cheating with him would be a futile exercise as the documents Ex. PW1/D1 will still remain valid documents as no relief of cancellation is sought by Pooran Masi.
Both these issues are decided in favour of Prahlad and against Pooran Masi.
24. ISSUE NO. 3 in SCJ No. 610737/16
3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties ? The onus to prove this issue was upon Yusuf Khan.
The allegation against Yusuf is that he took Pooran Masi to Prahlad for the purpose of getting loan sanctioned for Pooran Masi and fraudulently got Pooran Masi's signature and thumb impression on documents SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi Ex. PW1/D1, on the pretext of getting loan sanctioned. Even though there is no allegation that Yusuf was claiming any right, title or interest in the suit property or that he was in possession of original title documents belonging to Pooran Masi, however he is alleged to be coconspirator with Prahlad in cheating Pooran Masi. His presence was required so as to prove or disprove the above allegations of Pooran Masi. Even though no relief was sought against him but he was a proper party and his presence was required for complete adjudication of entire controversy between Pooran Masi and Prahlad.
This issue is decided in favour of Pooran Masi and against Prahlad and Yusuf.
25. ISSUES framed in SCJ No. 608770/16 I will decide issue no.6 firstly.
ISSUE No. 6Whether the defendant (Pooran Masi) is the owner of suit property?
The onus to prove this issue was upon Pooran Masi.
As far as this issue is concerned, the documents on the basis of which Pooran Masi claims himself to be the owner of the suit property are merely notarized documents except GPA which is registered. No one can be declared as owner on the basis of such documents. Infact perusal of documents Ex. PW1/D1 discloses that all the documents being relied by Prahlad are also merely notarized documents and are even unregistered. They are not valid deeds of convenyance of title. However, whatever limited rights, title and interest Pooran Masi may be having in the suit property, now stands transferred SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi to Prahlad since Pooran Masi has admitted his signatures and thumb impression on document Ex. PW1/D1 being relied by Prahlad as proof of his title. Hence, after execution of those documents, Pooran Masi is only left with possession of suit property and nothing else. However the fact remains that on the basis of documents on record, neither Pooran Masi nor Prahlad can be declared to be owner of suit property.
This issue is accordingly disposed off but against Pooran Masi.
26. ISSUE NO.1 and 21. Whether the Pooran Masi is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?
2. Whether the Pooran Masi is entitled for decree of possession as prayed for?
The findings on both these issues are based on common facts and evidences, hence both these issues are taken together. The onus to prove them was upon Prahlad. At the cost of repetition it has to be reiterated that both the suits of the parties are not suits for declaration of title qua the suit property so the title aspect becomes secondary.
27. I have already held as above that Pooran Masi has transferred all his limited rights and interest in the suit property through documents Ex. PW1/D1 in favour of Prahlad as no cancellation of these documents has been sought by him despite admission of his signatures and thumb impression. At the same time, on the basis of documents Ex. PW1/D1, Prahlad also cannot recover possession of suit property as those documents are unregistered and are SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi not valid deeds of conveyance of title.
28. However it has to be kept in mind that this suit has been filed by Prahlad against Pooran Masi for recovery of possession of suit property on the basis of Rent agreement exhibited as Ex. PW1/D2, in connected suit bearing SCJ no. 610707/16 on the ground that after selling the suit property to him, Pooran Masi had become his tenant through this rent agreement. Again no cancellation of this rent agreement has been sought by Pooran Masi despite admitting his signatures and thumb impression in his crossexamination, so this document cannot be discarded and holds good against him. Furthermore the court also cannot return a finding on the genuineness or otherwise of the Rent agreement Ex. PW1/D2 since no such relief has been sought by Pooran Masi.
29. Under such circumstances, the landlordtenant relationship gets established from rent agreement Ex. PW1/D2. As per this rent agreement Ex. PW 1/D2, the rate of rent is Rs.5,000 p.m. so the tenancy is not even covered by Delhi Rent Control Act. Further Prahlad had also sent legal notice Ex. DW1/P3 to Pooran Masi regarding termination of his tenancy on his correct address which is that of suit property. There is also an AD card Ex. PW1/6 which allegedly bears signatures of one Poonam and Durga. Though Pooran Masi does not admit or deny that those signatures belong to any of his family member but he also admits that the name of his wife is Smt. Durga and that of his daughter is Ms. Poonam and also that no other person besides his family, was in possession of suit property during relevant time. Under such circumstances, it has to be concluded that legal notice had been duly served upon Pooran Masi, thereby terminating his tenancy but he did not choose to SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi reply to the same. Nonreply to the legal notice shall also be deemed to be an admission on the part of Pooran Masi to the allegations as made in the legal notice Ex. PW1/D3.
30. Under such circumstances, Prahlad has sufficiently proved the existence of tenancy as well as its termination through legal notice. Moreover in view of documents Ex. PW1/D1 already having been executed by Pooran Masi in favour of Prahlad ( since signatures and thumb impression on the same are admitted by Pooran Masi), Prahlad is also entitled to relief that Pooran Masi be restrained from handing over physical possession of suit property to any third person as Prahlad has already performed his part of the contract.
Both these issues are decioded in favour of Prahlad and against Pooran Masi.
31. ISSUE No. 3Whether the plaintiff (Prahlad) is entitled for arrears of rent & electricity dues of Rs. 25,000/ as prayed for?
The onus to prove this issue was upon Prahlad.
As far as this issue is concerned, Pooran Masi has denied the factum of existence of any tenancy, so there is no question of him admitting having been made any payment of rent to Prahlad. There is even no cross examination of Prahlad on this aspect. Under such circumstances, the arrears of rent as is being claimed by Prahlad shall have to be deemed to be valid claim in view of the finding that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As regards electricity dues, there is no evidence on record to prove the electricity dues pending against the suit property still to be SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi recoverable from Pooran Masi. Hence no such relief can be granted.
This issue is partly decided in favour of Prahlad and against Pooran Masi.
32. ISSUE No.4 Whether the plaintiff (Prahlad) is entitled to future damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 500/ per day as prayed for ?
The onus to prove this issue was upon Prahlad.
Prahlad is claiming future damages/mesne profit @ Rs. 500/ per day, however he has not led any evidence to prove either the amount of future damages or that of mesne profits. Hence Prahlad cannot be awarded any such amount without any evidence in this regard.
This issue is decided in favour of Prahlad and against Pooran Masi.
33. ISSUE NO. 5Whether the plaintiff (Prahlad) is entitled to interest pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a.?
The onus to prove this issue was upon Prahlad.
He has claimed interest @ 18% p.a. which seems exorbitant and without justification. Interest @ 10 % p.a. is fair and equitable and is awarded to Prahlad.
This issue is accordingly disposed off.
34. RELIEF With these observations, suit bearing SCJ No. 610737/16 stands SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi dismissed. However suit bearing SCJ No. 608770/16, stands decreed with direction to Sh. Pooran Masi to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of suit property as shown in Site Plan Ex. PW1/1, to Sh. Prahlad within one month from the date of passing of decree. Sh. Prahlad is also granted arrears of rent of Rs. 20,000/ which was due as on date of filing of suit. He is further awarded arrears of rent @ Rs. 5,000/ p.m from the date of filing of suit till the date of recovery of its possession. Interest @ 10 % p.a. is also awarded to Sh. Prahlad on the arrears of rent. It is however clarified that the court is not declaring Sh. Prahlad as owner of the suit property and the findings of the court are confined to the facts as enumerated in the present suit and on the basis of Preponderance of Probabilities. Further Sh. Pooran Masi and Sh. Prahlad are at liberty to file a substantive suit for declaration of their respective title qua suit property or declaration of documents or Specific performance of contract for execution of a valid Sale deed or any other similar suit, if they are so advised. Till such time Sh. Prahlad would be entitled to retain possession of the suit property as a landlord. Parties to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Both the files be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court today ( A.K. Agrawal) i.e on 16.12.2016 Civil Judge 01 ( West)/Delhi SCJ No. 610737/16 Pooran Masi vs Prahlad & Anrs. and 19/18 and SCJ No. 608770/16 Prahlad vs Pooran Masi