Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On 29.01.2012, the Plaintiff, while carrying the original title documents and their previous chain to make photocopies, lost the said documents due to the heavy crowd in the market. Despite all efforts, the documents could not be traced. Consequently, the Plaintiff lodged a report with Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi, where NCR No. 102/2012 dated 30.01.2012 was registered.
Apprehending possible misuse of the lost documents, the Plaintiff, accompanied by her husband Shri Kamal Rohilla, visited the suit property, only to discover that the locks were broken and the property was forcibly occupied by the Defendants. Defendant No. 1 and 2, along with Defendant No. 2's brothers Rohtash and Satish, were found inside the premises. When questioned, they abused and manhandled CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 5/44 the Plaintiff and her husband, claiming ownership of the property and threatening them with dire consequences if they approached the premises again.
The Plaintiff immediately approached P.S. Harsh Vihar to lodge a complaint, but the police refused to act, terming it a civil dispute. The Plaintiff later learned that the Defendants, having possibly found the lost documents, conspired to usurp the property unlawfully.
On the evening of 30.01.2012, Defendant No. 1, from mobile number 8750452070, called the Plaintiff on her mobile number 9911072898. Defendant No. 2 used abusive language and threatened the Plaintiff, asserting that since she had lost the original documents, she could no longer prove her ownership and should negotiate with them regarding the property. He further threatened that if she failed to settle, he would sell the suit property through local property dealers. The Plaintiff recorded this threatening conversation on her mobile phone and immediately lodged a complaint at P.S. Gandhi Nagar, vide D.D. No. 62-B dated 30.01.2012, but no action was taken.

Sh. Mukesh Giri, one of the defendants/counter- claimants, was examined as DW-2. During his examination- in-chief, he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, exhibited as Ex. DW2/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the written statement and the counter-claim. In support of his testimony, he relied upon all the documents already relied upon by DW-1, Smt. Shakuntala.

Arguments:-

8. Arguments on behalf Plaintiff/Non-Counter-

Claimant:

Learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued along the lines of CS No. 921/16 Sunita Rohilla Vs. Shakuntala Devi & CC NO. 339/20 Shakuntala Devi Vs. Sunita Rohilla Page no. 22/44 the plaint, reading it in detail to support the case. At the same time, he referred to relevant portions of the Defendants' Written Statement to reinforce the Plaintiff's position. He submitted that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 clearly establishes the case of the Plaintiff. Counsel further relied on the lost report of the documents to demonstrate that the original property documents were lost in the market. He emphasized that the Plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit property, noting that even the Defendants' witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that the property was tenanted by the Plaintiff prior to the alleged dispossession. Additionally, he highlighted that the electricity bills of the suit property had been paid by the Plaintiff as further proof of possession.
"........... The previous chain of documents regarding the suit property were handed over to us and same were lost. (Vol. The said documents were stolen). Those chain of documents were lost on 29.01.2012. I have filed a complaint regarding stolen chain documents. I and my wife have filed the complaint at PS Gandhi Nagar regarding stolen documents 30.01.2012......"

Here, the version shifts from loss to theft of documents, which is a material contradiction. This inconsistency renders the plaintiff's story about the execution of the documents in her favour and the alleged loss of the previous chain even more unreliable.