Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1 This is a suit for declaration, possession, recovery of damages and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants submitting therein that the plaintiff is the owner of ground floor portion of property No.G­6, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and this property was purchased by the plaintiff from his mother Smt Chand Rani, defendant no.1, for a consideration of Rs. 1,90,000/­ and registered sale deed dated 02.08.1995 in respect of the entire ground floor portion of this property was executed in favour of plaintiff and the possession of the entire ground floor of the property in question was given to the plaintiff. It was further submitted in the plaint that plaintiff sold two shops of the ground floor portion of this property to two different persons, Sh. Ganga Parshad Puri vide sale deed dated 18.10.1995, and to Sh. Raghubir Prasad Chorasia vide sale deed dated 20.10.1995 and possession of these respective shops was given by the plaintiff to the said buyers. The possession of remaining portion at ground floor (hereinafter referred to as suit property) Suit No.54/11/96 Ramesh Chander Wadhwa vs Smt. Chand Rani etc. 2 remained with plaintiff. The plaintiff further submitted in the plaint that he is a permanent resident of Feroz Pur, Punjab and said ground floor portion of said property had been in possession of plaintiff and he had kept his household goods after locking the suit premises in his possession and had gone to Feroz Pur.

3. It is further stated by the plaintiff that defendant no.1 by no stretch of imagination could have executed another sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 when the sale deed had already been executed in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff was owner of the property and defendant no.1 had no Suit No.54/11/96 Ramesh Chander Wadhwa vs Smt. Chand Rani etc. 3 right and title to transfer the property in favour of defendant no.2 after execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff It was further stated in the plaint that defendants committed the offence of cheating, criminal tresspass, theft and also criminal breach of trust and even they had committed the offence of criminal conspiracy and the plaintiff made requisite complaint against them for the commission of all these offences to the police but no action had been taken on the same.

5. The defendants no.1 and 3 filed their common written statement alleging therein that the suit is not maintainable since plaintiff is not the owner of the property in question and has no locus standi to file the present suit . It was further alleged that defendant no.1 had sold only two shops on ground floor of the property in question to the plaintiff and had delivered vacant possession thereof to plaintiff without any consideration and plaintiff has Suit No.54/11/96 Ramesh Chander Wadhwa vs Smt. Chand Rani etc. 4 nothing to do with the remaining portion of the suit property except those two shops. The defendant nos.1 and 3 further alleged in their written statement that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and is guilty of his own misconduct and plaintiff had played fraud upon defendant no.1 at the time of sale of two shops in his favour. The defendant no.1 being illiterate old lady and widow mother of plaintiff did not doubt the intention of plaintiff and signed/executed papers in respect of property in good faith without getting any consideration and plaintiff had all along been telling her that he was purchasing the two shops and signatures of defendant no.1 were being taken for the sale of only two shops .

Suit No.54/11/96 Ramesh Chander Wadhwa vs Smt. Chand Rani etc. 5

7. The defendant no.2 filed his separate written statement and alleged therein that suit is based on concocted and false statements and facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. It was further alleged that plaintiff has cheated and defrauded the defendant by getting a sham sale deed registered in his name with his fraudulent acts, for which defendant no.1 has filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed which is pending disposal and hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed. He further alleged that plaintiff has made false averments and statement in the present suit regarding possession of suit property which has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of answering defendant since 1968 and plaintiff has no right or title in respect of the same. The defendant no.2 further alleged therein that he is true and legal owner of suit property having purchased the same from defendant no.1 vide duly registered sale deed and other documents dated 12.01.1996 and plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the said property because his sale deed is a bogus document which had been executed by fraud and misrepresentation for which defendant no.1 has already filed a suit for declaration and cancellation.