Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present suit filed by the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint are that the plaintiff no. 1 is the registered owner of the property bearing no. H­39, Gali no.3, Shastri Park, Delhi­53 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property duly shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint) by virtue of the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, SPA, Will and registered receipt for an amount of Rs. 52,000/­. It has been further stated that the husband of the plaintiff no. 1, who is the plaintiff no. 2 herein, was constructing the boundary wall of the said plot in the 1st Week of June, 2000 when the labourers of the plaintiffs were threatened by the accomplices of Sh. Madan Lal Khari with a country made pistol and with a ulterior motive to take the unlawful possession of the said plot. It has been further stated that a complaint to this effect was lodged with PS Seelampur on 10.06.2000. It has been further stated that on 17.06.2000 at about 4 pm, Sh. Madan Pal Khari himself wanted to illegally encroach upon the said plot, when the plaintiff no. 2 objected, he was threatened with dire consequences. It has been further stated that the plaintiff no. 2 called upon Sh. Madan Pal Khari to take away his cow which was kept by him in the plot of the plaintiff no.1. It has been further stated that a DD no. 50B dated 17.06.2000 was duly lodged by the plaintiffs in this regard. It has been further stated that the plaintiff no. 2 put a lock on the gate after constructing the boundary wall, but Sh. Madan Pal Khari and his son Sh. Hemu threatened to take forcible possession of the plot in question. It has been further stated that a complaint dated 20.06.2000 was duly acknowledged by the office of the DCP etc. in this regard. It has been further stated that as per the Khatoni for the year 1986­87, Sh Dharampal has been shown as the owner and in possession of Khasra no. 1 etc. 42/2 min. of Village Ghonda, Chauhan Khadar, Delhi. It has been further stated that Sh. Laxman S/o Sh. Ghoru, Sh. Rampal S/o Sh. Nathu and Sh. Om Pal S/o Sh. Rattan Singh had executed a registered GPA in favour of Sh. Dharampal and as per the Khatoni Sh. Dharampal has been shown the Bhumidar of the said Khasra. It has been further stated that the documents in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 were executed by Sh. Dharampal, who also executed a Will dated 20.01.1989. It has been further stated that Sh. Dharampal expired on 25.01.2008 and as such, the plaintiff no. 1 has become the absolute owner of the suit property. It has been further stated that Sh. Madan Pal Khari in collusion with one Sh. Shakil got filed a suit for Permanent Injunction in which Sh. Shakil claimed himself to be owner of the said property. It has been further stated that area of the plot in the said suit was mentioned as 200 sq. yards. It has been further stated that the said suit was filed on 17.06.2000 in which Sh. Madan Pal Khari got an order dated 20.06.2000 in his favour to the effect that Sh. Madan Pal Khari was the tenant under Sh. Shakil in the suit property. It has been further stated that the said suit bearing no. 311/2002 was ultimately dismissed on 30.05.2003 because it was a collusive suit in between late Sh. Madan Pal and Sh. Shakil. It has been further stated that Sh. Madan Pal Khari also instituted a suit for Permanent Injunction against the plaintiff no.2 herein, which is pending in the Court of Sh. Lal Singh, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi. It has been further stated that Sh. Madan Pal Khari expired on 07.01.2007 and the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Madan Pal Khari in the present suit. It has been further stated that ever since 20.01.1989, the plaintiffs were in possession of the said plot by virtue of the title documents executed by the previous owner Sh. Dharampal. It has been further stated that after the dismissal of the suit filed by Sh. Shakil Ahmad, the defendants have constructed ground floor, incomplete first floor on 1/3rd portion of the western side of the said plot. It has been further stated that the defendants are the rank trespassers and unauthorized occupants of the suit property belonging to the plaintiffs. It has been further stated that after the death of Sh. Dharampal, the plaintiffs have the right to recover the possession of the said plot from the defendants and hence, the present suit.

28. In the cross­examination, DW3 has stated as under:­ "I am working as a private driver and also I deal in the business of supplying the milk. I am educated upto 5th standard. I cannot read or write English language. I am aware about the contents of my affidavit Ex. D3 as the same was read over to me by my Advocate in Hindi. I came to know about the pendency of the present suit in the year 2002. I have been residing in H. No. 39, Gali no. 3, Shastri Park, Delhi since 1970. My date of birth is 5th of November 1978. I was born in H. No. H­42, Gali no. 3, Shastri Park, Delhi which is situated just in front of H. No. 39, Gali no.3, Shastri Park, Delhi. My grandfather started residing in Delhi even prior to 1970. I do not know any person by the name of Sh. Bhoru Singh. Vol. But my grandfather was acquainted with the said person. Sh. Bhoru Singh was a friend of my grandfather but he was not any relative of my grandfather. I do not know about the children of Sh. Bhoru Singh. I am not aware as to where the children of Sh. Bhoru Singh reside. I do not have any documentary proof to show my residence at the suit property prior to 22.06.2000. I have not placed on record any documentary proof to show my possession over the suit property prior to 22.06.2000. It is wrong to suggest that I took over the forcible possession of the suit property on 22.06.2000 and that is why, I do not have any documentary proof of my possession over the suit property prior to 22.06.2000. I am not aware about any suit instituted by one Sh. Shakeel Ahmad against my father. My father had instituted a suit against Sh. Shakeel Ahmad and the plaintiff Sh. Surbir Singh. I am not aware about the reply filed by defendant no. 3 and 4 in suit bearing no. 1442/2000 titled as Madan Pal Khari Vs. Shakeel Ahmad. Certified copy of the said reply along with the reply with affidavit is collectively exhibited as Ex. DW3/P1. I am not aware as to whether Sh. Bhoru Singh expired on 02.05.1956. I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that Sh. Bhoru Singh expired on 02.05.1956. It is wrong to suggest that a Kalandera U/s 107/150 of CrPC was lodged against my father with PS Seelampur with respect to forcible possession over the suit property on 21.06.2000.

It is correct that the above said four persons namely Sh. Dharampal s/o Sh. Ram Chander, Sh. Laxman S/o Sh. Bhoru, Sh. Ram Pal S/o Sh. Nathu and Sh. Om Pal S/o Sh. Rattan Singh were the owners of the suit property. I cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the above said four persons sold off the suit property to the plaintiff no. 1 in the present suit on 20.01.1989. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property from 20.01.1989 till 22.06.2000. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiffs had erected a boundary wall, affixed a gate and put their own lock over the suit property prior to 22.06.2000. It is wrong to suggest that I myself and my father took over the forcible possession of the suit property and tethered our buffaloes in the suit property on 22.06.2000. It is wrong to suggest that even prior to 22.06.2000 when the plaintiffs were getting constructed their boundary wall over the suit property, we were putting obstacles therein. Vol. The boundary wall was there since the times of my grandfather.

I know Sh. Ram Bharose Sharma s/o Sh. Ganga Swaroop Sharma because he is a resident of the same gali in which I reside but I do not know any person by the name of Sh. Kamal Kishore s/o Sh. Chander Pal. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Kamal Kishore and Sh. Bharose Sharma had deposed before the Police on 21.06.2000 that I myself in collusion with others was taking over the forcible possession over the suit property.