Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By this judgment, the court will adjudicate the plaintiff's suit seeking declaration, partition, permanent injunction, and mesne profits/damages.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT :-

Briefly, the essential facts required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the plaint, are as follows:

2. The plaintiff, a law-abiding citizen residing in Delhi, has filed a suit against her brothers regarding property No. D-308, land measuring 40 sq. yards, situated in Ganesh Nagar Pandav Nagar Complex, Delhi-110092. This property was originally owned by their late mother, Smt. Veena Devi, who purchased it via a registered agreement to sell and general power of attorney (document no. 12057, Volume No. 4844, pages 171-172) on 02/03/1998. Smt. Veena Devi died intestate on 25/11/2009. The plaintiff alleges that following her mother's death, she was coerced by the defendants and their father, Sh. Dharamvir Sachdeva, into signing a relinquishment deed on 02/02/2010 (registered as CS no. 2672/16 Vimal Sharma Vs. Mahender Sachdeva & Anr. Page no. 2 of 36 VIKAS by VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.08.30 18:07:35 +0530 no. 1657) in favor of her father. The plaintiff claims she was in a vulnerable state due to personal issues and was unduly influenced. Sh. Dharamvir Sachdeva subsequently died on 28/02/2012.

Defendants' Evidence:

7. To support the defendants' case, Defendant No. 1, Mahender Sachdeva, was examined as DW-1 and provided his evidential affidavit, Ex. DW1/A, during his examination-

CS no. 2672/16 Vimal Sharma Vs. Mahender Sachdeva & Anr. Page no. 8 of 36 VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2024.08.30 GARG 18:08:20 +0530 in-chief, wherein he reiterated the contents of the written statement. Similarly, Defendant No. 2, Ashok Sachdeva, was examined as DW-2 and presented his evidential affidavit, Ex. DW2/A, also reiterating the contents of the written statement.

8. Copy of Will dated 28.07.2011, marked as Mark-B,
9. Certified Copy of Complaint dated 24.10.2014, already marked as Ex. D-1,
10. Copy of Details of Cash Paid to Vimal Sharma (Plaintiff) dated 11.02.2011, already marked as Mark-A,
11. Copies of Two Kishan Vikas Patra dated 22.02.2010 for Rs. 10,000/- in the name of the Plaintiff, already marked as Ex. D-3.

DW-2 relied on the following documents:

1. Original Relinquishment Deed dated 02.02.2010, already marked as Ex. DW-1/1,
2. Original Family Will dated 08.02.2010, already marked as CS no. 2672/16 Vimal Sharma Vs. Mahender Sachdeva & Anr. Page no. 9 of 36 VIKAS by VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.08.30 18:08:27 +0530 Ex. D-1,

In support of this, the defendants' counsel referenced the judgment in Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors (2008), which outlines the legal position on suits for prohibitory injunctions relating to immovable property. This judgment emphasizes that when a cloud is raised over a plaintiff's title and they lack possession, the proper remedy is a suit for declaration and possession, not merely an injunction.

The defendants' counsel further argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages, as she has no share in the property. Defendant No. 1, Mahender Sachdeva, is the absolute owner CS no. 2672/16 Vimal Sharma Vs. Mahender Sachdeva & Anr. Page no. 12 of 36 VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2024.08.30 GARG 18:09:15 +0530 of the property by virtue of the documents executed by Late Sh. Dharam Veer Sachdeva. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 is enjoying and benefiting from the property as the rightful owner.