Delhi District Court
Presently At : H. No. H. 32 vs Sh. Ram Nath Yadav on 12 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.P. SINGH, ADJ03 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 563/16
New CS No. 614191/16
In the matter of:
Vandana Garg
W/o Sh. P.K. Garg
R/o H. No. 76, Gali No. 3, Sarpanch Ka Bara
Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi92
Presently at : H. No. H. 32, Pocket - A,
INA Colony, New Delhi - 23. .......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Nath Yadav
S/o late Kanoji Lal
R/o H. No. 468, Gali No. 12 - C,
I - Block, Hari Nagar Extension,
Jaitpur, Badarpur, New Delhi - 44
Also At:
Plot No. 486, Gali No. 12 - C
I - Block, Hari Nagar Extension,
Jaitpur, Badarpur, New Delhi - 44
2. Sh. Devi Prasad Tiwari
S/o late D. Tiwari
R/o H. No. 468, Gali No. 12 - C,
I - Block, Hari Nagar Extension,
Jaitpur, Badarpur, New Delhi - 44
Also At:
Flat No. D 76, Type - I
Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi - 23
CS No.563//16
New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 1 of 22
3. Arvind Kumar Goswami @ Arvind Goswami
S/o Sh. Satya Prakash Goswami
R/o C - 8, Block - D, Jaitpur Extn.
P. O. Badarpur, New Delhi - 44
Also At:
C/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o H. No. D - 75, Hari Nagar Extn.
Part - I, Attar Singh Public School Road,
In front of New Gurudwara
New Delhi - 44 ......Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION, PERMANENT
AND MANDATORY INJUCTIONS WITH RECOVERY OF
PROFITS
DAMAGES / MESNE
Suit filed on - 23.12.2006
Date of decision - 12.10.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Facts, as set out in the plaint, are as follows: Plaintiff is the absolute owner of property no./plot no. 468, gali no. 12 C, IBlock, Hari Nagar Extension, Jaitpur, Badarpur, Delhi (for short the 'suit property') measuring 100 sq. yards out of khasra no. 753/2, 768 and 769. The suit property is bounded as follows: East - other's property; West - 12 feet road:
North - Other's property; South - 15 feet road. Plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Niranjan Singh vide notarised GPA sale documents dt. 13.05.1997 for a consideration of Rs. 1.20 lacs. She acquired possession of the CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 2 of 22 suit property.
2. Plaintiff's husband was working with Airports Authority of India at its New Delhi office. After purchase of the suit property, her husband was transferred to Babatpur, Varanasi. Plaintiff, her husband and other family members shifted to Babatpur, Varanasi. They remained there from 24.11.2003 to 06.07.2006. Before shifting to Babatpur, Varanasi, plaintiff had raised construction of two rooms, kitchen, W.C. and bathroom on the ground floor with a staircase in the suit property and also a door therein. The construction done by her spread over 50 sq. yards. Remaining 50 sq. yards was left open. A boundary wall too was raised with a main door.
3. Plaintiff's husband was transferred back to Delhi. Plaintiff and her husband visited the suit property on 29.10.2006 at 11:00 am. Defendant no.1 Ram Nath Yadav was found in illegal possession of about 50 sq. yards portion of suit property (as shown in red colour in site plan). Defendant no.2 Devi Prasad Tiwari was found in illegal possession of remaining 50 sq. yards, which was the constructed portion (as shown in green colour in site plan). Plaintiff asked defendants no.1 and 2 to vacate, but they refused. Defendants no.1 and 2 disclosed that they had purchased the property from defendant no.3, but they showed CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 3 of 22 no documents. Defendants no.1 and 2 threatened to sell the suit property to someone else. Plaintiff and her husband met defendant no.3, a property dealer, the very same day, who denied selling the suit property to defendants no.1 and 2. Plaintiff and her husband immediately approached the concerned the police station for registration of FIR, but to no avail.
4. Plaintiff's apprehension is that defendants no.1 and 2 trespassed into the suit property and stole her household articles on the basis of forged and fabricated documents prepared in collusion with defendant no.3. Plaintiff states defendant no. 3 'was also one of the witness to the deal of the part of plot No. 468, situated in gali No. 12B, IBlock, Hari Nagar Extension, Jaitpur, New Delhi which is measuring 100 sq. yards'. As per her, defendant no.3 was also a 'witness on the sale papers of the said property measuring about 12'X30' = 40 sq. yards to Smt. Kusum w/o Jagdish Saini, belongs to the brother of the husband of the plaintiff namely Tarun Kumar and the said property is adjacent with the suit property'. On these averments, plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:
(a) Decree of declaration in declaring the plaintiff as lawful and genuine owner of suit property as shown in colours red and green in the site plan attached with the suit;
CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 4 of 22
(b) Decree of possession in plaintiff's favour and against defendants by directing defendants no.1 and 2 and their attorneys, servants, legal heirs, assignees, etc. to hand over vacant physical possession of the suit property as shown in colour red and green respectively in the site plan attached with the present suit;
(c) Decree of permanent injunction in plaintiff's favour to restrain defendants no. 1 to 3, their legal heirs, attorneys, servants, assignees from creating third party interest, letting out, transferring, selling, parting with possession, or alienating any portion of the suit property under the illegal possession of the defendants no. 1 and 2 as shown specifically in red and green colours in site plan attached with the suit;
(d) Decree for declaration in plaintiff's favour against defendants by declaring the false and forged documents made by defendant no.1 to 3, if any, either in shape of GPA, Agreement to sell, money receipt, bill etc. or in another shape qua the suit property, if any, be declared null, void and forged;
(e) A decree for damages in plaintiff's favour and against defendants no.1 and 2 @ Rs. 2,000/ per month (Rs. 1,000/ each for the portion under illegal possession of defendants no. 1 and 2 as shown in red and green colours respectively in the site plan attached with the suit) from date of filing of present suit till realisation or execution of the decree against defendants no. 1 and 2 or till handing over of respective portions of suit property by defendants no.1 and 2 to plaintiff;
(f) Costs of the suit with pendente lite and CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 5 of 22 future interest over the amount of damages in plaintiff's favour and against defendants @ 24% per annum till realization;
(g) A Decree of mandatory injunction in plaintiff's favour and against defendants no.1 and 2 thereby directing defendants not to cause any damage and change in the shape of the suit property in any manner; and
(h) Any other or further relief in plaintiff's favour and against defendants.
5. Defendants no.1 and 2 filed their written statement on 02.02.2007. They state as follows: that suit property bearing plot no. 468, Block no. I, Hari Nagar Extension is situate is Gali no. 12B and not in Gali no. 12C; that portion shown in the site plan to be in possession of defendants no.1 and 2 bears plot no. 478 with 478A being of defendant no.1 and 478 B of defendant no.2; that ' actually plaintiff is claiming on the land of plot which bears No. 478 while plot of the plaintiff is 468'; that plot no. 468 stands for the portion shown in the site plan in possession of Om Prakash Saini and Smt. Kusum Saini w/o Jagdish Singh Saini; that portion shown in the plaint and in the site plan in possession of defendant no.1 is actually in the name of his wife Rajeshwari; that plaintiff due to misunderstanding is claiming right, title and interest in their plot. Defendants no.1 and 2 go on to state that they had purchased vacant land with no construction thereon and the CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 6 of 22 plot was full of marsh and dirty water; that name of defendant no.2 is Devi Prasad Tripathi and not Devi Prasad Tiwari. They state that they are neither in wrongful possession nor trespassers in the suit property. They aver that the suit suffers from defects of misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties as plot no. 468 stands for the portion shown in the site plan, which is in possession of Om Prakash Saini and Smt. Kusum who have not been arrayed as parties Denying all other averments of the plaintiff, defendants no.1 and 2 seek dismissal of the suit.
6. Defendant no.3 was served by the mode of publication in the daily The Statesman dt. 12.10.2007. Defendant no.3 despite service neither appeared nor filed his written statement. He suffered the proceedings ex parte vide order dt. 30.10.2007.
7. Plaintiff in her replication reiterated and reaffirmed her averments as set out in the plaint and refuted those of defendants no.1 and 2 as set out in their written statement.
8. Issues framed on 18.07.2008 are as follows:
1. Whether plaintiff is the owner of the suit property bearing no. 468, Block No. 1, Hari Nagar Extension, Jaitpur, Badarpur, Delhi.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration and possession in respect of the suit property.
CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 7 of 22
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction and damages against the defendant.
4. Whether the documents of defendant no. 1 and 3 are forged / fabricated and liable to be declared void.
5. Relief.
9. In plaintiff's evidence, the following witnesses were examined:
PW1 Vandana Garg (plaintiff herself). She deposed along the same lines as averred in the plaint. She exhibited the GPA Sale Documents in her favour as Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/6 and the site plan as Ex. PW1/1. She was not crossexamined despite repeated opportunities.
PW2 P.K. Garg (plaintiff's husband). He deposed along the same lines as averred in the plaint.
PW3 Tarun Kumar Garg (plaintiff's brotherinlaw). He deposed that plaintiff purchased the suit property from Niranjan Singh in his presence. He also deposed that he had purchased an adjacent plot that was subsequently sold out. Rest of his deposition is along the same lines as set out in the plaint. This witness was not crossexamined despite repeated opportunities.
10. In defendants' evidence, following witnesses were CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 8 of 22 examined:
DW1 - Ram Nath Yadav (defendant no.1).
D2W1 Devi Prasad Tripathi (defendant no.2).
D1 & 2 W3 / DW3 - K. Sadanandan (stating himself to be neighbour of plot no. 478A of defendant no.1 and plot no. 478B for defendant no.2). It is pertinent to mention that this witness in his crossexamination deposed that he had purchased his own plot from Niranjan Singh.
11. Arguments heard. Record perused.
12. Issuewise findings are as follows.
13. Issue no.1 - The issue is whether plaintiff is the owner of the suit property bearing no. 468, Block No. I, Hari Nagar Extension, Jaitpur, Badarpur, Delhi. It was for the plaintiff to prove this issue. Plaintiff relies on her GPA sale documents (GPA Ex. PW1/3, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW1/4, Affidavit of vendor Niranjan Singh Ex. PW1/5 and Receipt Ex. PW1/6) in support of her assertions that she owns the suit property. The suit property as reflected in the GPA sale documents Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/6 is shown to be 'plot no. 468 land measuring 100 sq. yards out of khasra no. 753/2, CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 9 of 22 768 and 769 situated at IBlock, Hari Nagar Extn., PO Badarpur, New Delhi - 44 bounded on the North and East by other's property, bounded on the South by 15 feet road and bounded on the West by 12 feet road.' Plaintiff (PW1) in her evidence deposed inter alia that she purchased the suit property from Niranjan Singh for a consideration of Rs. 1.20 lacs vide the aforesaid GPA sale documents. GPA sale documents dt. 13.05.1997 Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/6 reflect the vendor to be Niranjan Singh and the consideration amount to be Rs. 1.20 lacs. Plaintiff (PW1) was not crossexamined. Her evidence therefore stands unrebutted and unchallenged. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 Tarun Kumar Garg also remains unrebutted and unchallenged. PW2 P. K. Garg was crossexamined, but nothing came in his crossexamination to create any doubt in plaintiff's case.
14. What lends assurance to the veracity of plaintiff's case is the following circumstance. DW3 K. Sadanandan states that he is a neighbour to the suit property for the reason that his plot is adjacent to it. He in his evidence deposed that he bought his own plot from Niranjan Singh. Therefore, on preponderance of probabilities, it does appear that even the suit property that adjoins the plot of DW3 K. Sadanandan must have been sold by none else other than Niranjan Singh.
CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 10 of 22 This circumstance, on preponderance of probabilities,, only goes to falsify the stand of defendants no.1 and 2 that they had made their purchase(s) from defendant no. 3.
15. Next, defendants no.1 and 2 claim title in their own name. In the written statement defendants no. 1 and 2 claimed that they had purchased vacant land which was full of marsh and dirty water sans any construction. As per the stand of the defendants no. 1 and 2, the red colour (constructed) portion is that of defendant no. 1/his wife and defendant no.2 owns the green colour portion (open space) of the suit property as reflected in site plan Ex. PW1/1. Both of them claim to have purchased from defendant no.3 Arvind Kumar Goswami @ Arvind Goswami. However, defendants no.1 and 2 filed no documents whatsoever on record to show their title. They could neither explain as to how defendant no.3 Arvind Kumar Goswami @ Arvind Goswami acquired title and then sold portions of the suit property to them. Defendant no. 2 (D2W1) in his crossexamination states that defendant no. 3 Arvind Kumar Goswami had a sale deed in his name qua the suit property. The best evidence in this regard could only and only have been the sale deed and nothing else. Such a sale deed in the name of defendant no. 3 Arvind Kumar Goswami never saw the light of the day in this Court. That apart, it is veryvery difficult to believe that CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 11 of 22 vendees (defendants no. 1 and 2) would not have taken any copy of the sale deed from the vendor (defendant no. 3). Further, defendants no. 1 and 2 could neither come up with the exact date of purchase of the portions claimed by them. Although, defendant no.1 (DW1) in his crossexamination states that he had been living in his portion since 21.06.2005, but he does not specify the exact date when he made the purchase. Neither does defendant no.2 (D2W1) in his cross examination come up with any date of his claim to the purchase. He however states that he has been residing in his portion since 2004. It is also pertinent to mention that neither in the written statement did defendants no.1 and 2 specify the exact date when they had purchased their respective portions from defendant no.3. That apart, no witness to the socalled sale transaction in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2 stepped into the witness box to say that they had purchased the suit property from defendant no.
3. Further, defendants no. 1 and 2 neither state the consideration amount which they had paid for the purchases made by them. Further, it is neither shown as to what were the nature of documents that were executed in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2 by defendant no. 3. All these aspects, individually and cumulatively only go to strengthen plaintiff's case and cast a big doubt in the version of defendants no.1 CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 12 of 22 and 2.
16. Next, defendants no.1 and 2 disputed the plot number and the gali number. As per the plaintiff, plot number of the suit property is 468 and the same is in gali no. 12C. Defendants no.1 and 2 however in their written statement state that plot number 468 is in fact located in gali no. 12B and not in 12C and further that this plot number 468 in fact stands for the portion shown in site plan Ex. PW1/1 under possession of Om Prakash Saini and Ms. Kusum wife of Sh. Jagdish Singh Saini. Defendants no.1 and 2 in their written statement further state that the suit property in fact bears number 478; with 478A pertaining to defendant no.1 and 478B pertaining to defendant no.2. It is pertinent to mention here that in the crossexamination of PW2 a suggestion was put which was replied as follows, "It is wrong to suggest that the defendant no.1 and 2 are in possession of plot no. 478 which is partitioned and given number 478A and B." This stand of defendants no.1 and 2 disputing the plot and the gali number is not credible for the following multiple reasons. In the very first place, defendants no.1 and 2 have no documents to show that the suit property in fact bears no. 478. Defendants no. 1 and 2 neither have any document to show that it is actually the plot of Om Prakash Saini and Kusum Saini wife of Jagdish Singh Saini, as shown in the site plan CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 13 of 22 Ex. PW1/1, that bears plot no. 468. Going by the version of defendants no. 1 and 2, Om Prakash Saini and Kusum Saini wife of Jagdish Singh Saini would be their neighbours; however, neither of them was brought in the witness box to show that number 468 in fact pertains to their (Om Prakash Saini and Kusum) plot. It is pertinent to mention here that the plot(s) of Om Prakash Saini and Ms. Kusum wife of Jagdish Singh Saini, as per the site plan Ex. PW1/1, is right above the suit property. In other words, Om Prakash Saini and Ms. Kusum wife of Sh. Jagdish Singh Saini are the northern neighbours to the suit property. On the contrary, plaintiff possesses documents (GPA sale documents) in support of her claim that her plot (suit property) bears no.
468. Further, boundaries of the suit property as described in the General Power of Attorney Ex. PW1/3 and Agreement to Sell Ex. PW1/4 matches with the boundaries as shown in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. As per plaintiff's GPA sale documents, on the North and on the East, there exists property of others and this is actually so in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. As per plaintiff's GPA sale documents, on the South there is a 15 feet road and on the West a 12 feet road and this is actually so in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. Further, defendant no.2 (D2W1) in his crossexamination admits that site plan Ex. PW1/1 is correct according to the site. Not only this, even CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 14 of 22 defendant no.1 (DW1) either in his pleadings or in his evidence did not dispute the correctness of site plan Ex. PW1/1. Defendant no.1 (DW1) in his crossexamination admits himself to be in possession of red colour portion of the site plan. Defendant no.1 (DW1) also admits that defendant no. 2 is in green colour portion of the site plan. The crux therefore is that the correctness of site plan Ex. PW1/1 is not at all in dispute. Further, DW3 K. Sadanandan in his cross examination states that house of the defendants is in gali no. 12C. This in effect means that the house (suit property) which defendants no.1 and 2 are currently occupying is actually in gali no. 12C and which version is exactly in tune with plaintiff's version and completely contrary to the very stand of defendants no.1 and 2 that the suit property is actually located in gali no. 12B. This deposition of DW3 K. Sadanandan only goes to bolster plaintiff's case and demolish the stand of defendants no.1 and 2. Thus, the crux of this discussion is that the suit property actually bears no. 468 and it is located in gali no. 12C. The dispute raised by defendants no. 1 and 2 over the plot number and the gali number appears to be a blatant lie.
17. Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 2 argued that plaintiff is not sure as to in which khasra number her plot is located out of the three khasra numbers as mentioned in her CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 15 of 22 GPA sale documents. This aspect can hardly be fatal to the plaintiff's case. This is for the reason that identity of the property in question is not at all disputed. Plaintiff sued for the very same property which is currently in occupation of defendants no. 1 and 2. Further, the discussion in the preceding paragraph would show that the dispute raised by defendants no. 1 and 2 over the plot number and the gali number is a false one. Given this, the fact that the plaintiff may be unsure as to in which khasra number the suit property actually falls, will not suffice to nonsuit her.
18. Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 2 further argued that plaintiff's site plan Ex.PW1/1 makes no mention of any khasra number. For the similar reason as in the preceding paragraph no. 17 (supra) this argument is of no avail. To repeat, identity of the property in question is not in dispute, and the dispute raised by defendants no. 1 and 2 over plot number and khasra number is a false one.
19. Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 2 next argued that there is a presumption under section 110, Evidence Act in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 and against the plaintiff. Section 110, Evidence Act holds that when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 16 of 22 not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. Given the evidence and the circumstances on record, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has successfully discharged the burden of proving that defendants no. 1 and 2 are not the owners of the suit property.
20. To sum up the discussion on this issue, it is held that the plaintiff has been successful in proving that she owns the suit property as shown in red colour and green colour portions in the site plan Ex. PW1/1.
21. Issue no.2 - The issue is whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration and possession in respect of the suit property. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff.
22. Coming to the very first limb of this issue visàvis relief of declaration, plaintiff has proved a better title than defendants no. 1 and 2 qua the suit property. It has already been held hereinabove that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. In view thereof, it is fit and apposite that plaintiff be granted the relief of declaration of ownership of the suit property. Ld. Counsel for defendants no.1 and 2, however, argued that the GPA sale documents in plaintiff's favour are unregistered and on that basis she cannot be granted a decree for declaration of ownership of the suit property. This argument overlooks certain fundamental aspects. A judgment CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 17 of 22 granting the relief of declaration of ownership is not one in rem, but in personam. Relief of declaration of ownership binds only the parties to the suit in terms of section 35, Specific Relief Act. As per section 41 of Indian Evidence Act judgment in a civil suit declaring one to be owner of an immovable property is not one, which is absolute and in rem. In the lis at hand, the plaintiff has proved a better title as against the defendants. This argument also overlooks the fact that the suit property is situate in an unauthorised colony. I doubt if anyone in such an unauthorised colony, wherein the suit property is located, would have registered documents. Not only this, I also doubt if DW3 K. Sadanandan (brought into the witness box by defendants no. 1 and 2) who claimed himself to be owner of a nearby plot had any registered documents in his favour. Further, the GPA sale documents in plaintiff's favour pertain to the year 1997, which was much before the amendments made in Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act effective from 24.09.2001. This court is conscious of the verdict of the Apex Court in Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC). However, subsequent thereto, Delhi High Court in Shri Ramesh Chand Vs. Shri Suresh Chand & Anr., 188 (2012) DLT 538 has held that where power of attorney sale documents are coupled with consideration, then CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 18 of 22 stricto sensu complete ownership is not conferred, but the said documents do create rights to the extent provided under section 202 of Contract, 1872, section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and ownership on account of devolution in terms of the Will after demise of the testator. Delhi High Court in this regard relied on an observation in Suraj Lamps (supra) to the effect that power of attorney is not revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. It may also be pointed out that under section 202, Contract Act, 1872 if a power of attorney is given for a consideration, then it cannot be terminated in the absence of an express contract to the prejudice of such interest. I may also add that in terms of Suraj Lamps (supra) (para 18 of the judgment) a transaction involving Agreement to Sell/Power of Attorney/Will may be used to obtain specific performance. In the case at hand, the GPA sale documents dt. 13.05.1997 in plaintiff's favour were surely coupled with consideration of Rs. 1.20 lacs. As such, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is certainly entitled to the relief of declaration of ownership of the suit property as shown in red colour and green colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. In view thereof, plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property as against defendants.
CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 19 of 22
23. Issue no.3 - The issue is whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction and damages against defendants. Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. In view of the findings on issue no.1, a decree of permanent injunction in plaintiff's favour and against defendants is liable to be granted. Defendants are thus restrained from letting out, creating third party interest, transferring, selling, parting with possession or alienating the suit property or any portion thereof.
24. In so far as the relief of damages is concerned, plaintiff seeks damages @ Rs. 1,000/ per month each from defendants no. 1 and 2. Plaintiff led no evidence on the aspect of mesne profits. There is no evidence on record to show as to how much market rent would a similarly situated property fetch. Nonetheless, there are catena of decisions that have held that while determining mesne profits the Courts are well entitled to take judicial notice of the increase in rentals of the area where the property is situated. Decisions reported as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. I. S. Ratta & Ors., 120 (2005) DLT 407; National Radio & Electrical Co. Ltd. vs. Motion Pictures Association, 122 (2005) DLT 629 and Motor & General Finance Ltd. vs. Nirulas & Ors., 92 (2001) DLT 97 can be referred in this regard. In the case at CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 20 of 22 hand, plaintiff's claim to monthly damages/mesne profits of Rs. 1,000/ each from defendants no.1 and 2 is a veryvery reasonable amount. Plaintiff is accordingly awarded damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 1,000/ per month each from defendants no.1 and 2 from the date of filing of the suit till actual vacation of the suit property by the latter.
25. Issue no. 4 - The issue is whether the documents of defendant no.1 and 3 are forged / fabricated and liable to be declared void. Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. Defendants filed no documents on record. Inasmuch as no documents whatsoever were filed on record by defendants, there is no question of declaring anything to be forged and fabricated or to be void. This issue accordingly stands decided.
26. Relief - This suit of the plaintiff stands decreed in the following terms: (A) Plaintiff is declared to be the owner of the suit property as shown in red colour and green colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. (B) Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property as shown in red colour and green colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/1 from the defendants. (C) Plaintiff is awarded damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 1,000/ per month each from defendants no.1 and 2 from the date of filing of the suit till actual vacation of the suit property by CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 21 of 22 the latter. (D) Cost of the suit is awarded in plaintiff's favour and against defendants no. 1 and 2.
27. Decree sheet be drawn up. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by MURARIMURARI PRASAD SINGH PRASAD Date: SINGH 2018.10.12 16:31:27 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN +0530 COURT ON 12.10.2018 (M.P. SINGH) ADJ3 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI CS No.563//16 New CS No.614191/16 Page No. 22 of 22