Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Burari, Delhi, admeasuring 200 sq yards. It is case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the husband and wife and living in the suit property as tresspassers, although they were inducted as licensee by the plaintiff but later on both the defendants became dishonest and occupied the suit property unauthorizedly and illegally. It is pleaded that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff on 21.02.1992 in the shape of two plots admeasuring 133.1/2 yards and 66.2/3 sq. yards having two constructed rooms, bearing the same Khasra no. i.e. 236 situated at Himgiri village­ Mukundpura, Delhi and after taking the possession the plaintiff had joined both the plots by raising a common boundary wall around them. It is further pleaded that after few months of construction, the plaintiff visited the suit property alongwith her husband and found that the boundary wall of suit property had broken at several places and on enquiry it was learnt from defendant no.1 that since the property was lying locked without having any caretaker therefore some nearby people might have started stealing the bricks of boundary wall of suit property. According to the plaintiff the defendant no.1 requested that since he was not having sufficient and proper accommodation and was living in nearby jhuggies with his family therefore Smt. Roop Kumari Solanki Vs. Peter John & Ors. (Suit No. 185/15) Page No. 2 of 15 he sought permission to live in suit property as a caretaker and further assured the husband of plaintiff that he would vacate the suit property as and when directed. According to the plaintiff both the defendants were permitted to live in the suit property as a caretaker's but after some time, the defendants with their dishonest intention started claiming themselves to be owner of suit property and also filed a false suit for permanent injunction against Sh. R. K. Solanki in Tis Hazari Courts on the basis of forged and fabricated documents but the suit was rejected / dismissed by the court of Sh. Inderjeet Singh the then S.C.J. Delhi vide order dated 12.05.2000 because the suit was filed against Sh. R.K. Solanki who was non existent entity therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It is pleaded that the forgery committed by defendant no.2 was also disclosed before the judicial authority when the person namely Sh. Shyam Singh from whom the defendant no.2 purchased the suit property as alleged by the documents filed by her with the aforesaid suit. It is further pleaded that Sh. Shyam Singh filed his affidavit before the concerned court that neither he had dealt with defendant no.2 in any manner regarding the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the decision of aforesaid suit, the plaintiff alongwith her husband and one more person namely Sh. Tara Chand Saxena, visited the suit property on 15.05.2000 and the plaintiff directed the defendants to vacate the suit property immediately and terminated their licence to reside there but the defendants flatly refused to vacate the suit property claiming that defendant no.2 was the owner of that property but the defendants started abusing, Smt. Roop Kumari Solanki Vs. Peter John & Ors. (Suit No. 185/15) Page No. 3 of 15 manhandling and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences if they ever dare to enter the suit property and the husband of plaintiff reported the matter to the police but except sitting on the matter for many years, the police has not taken any action against the defendants. Thereafter, finding no other way, the husband of plaintiff filed a criminal complaint U/s 420, 468, 471, 406, 348 of CrPC against the defendants on 05.10.2009 and the same is pending before the court of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, MM, Tis Hazari, Delhi. It is pleaded that in June 2011 the plaintiff came to know from the property dealers of Burari that the defendants have booked the suit property for sale and they are going to dispose off the same at throw away prices and intend to flee away after collecting the sale proceeds. It is further pleaded that since the defendant have refused to vacate and handover the vacate, peaceful, physical possession of the suit property therefore the plaintiff is not left with any other option except to seek the kind indulgence of the Hon'ble Court by way of filing the present suit.

Mukundpur, Delhi and the defendants are lawful owner and in possession of property bearing no.A/50/G­3, Himgiri Enclave, Near Transport Authority, Burari, Delhi and as such there is no clear cause of action to sue defendants. (5) On merits, the defendant no. 1 and 2 have denied that the plaintiff was nursing superintendent and she is retired from L.N.J.P. Hospital with an unblemished service. It is denied that the plaintiff is the rightful and actual Smt. Roop Kumari Solanki Vs. Peter John & Ors. (Suit No. 185/15) Page No. 5 of 15 owner of the property bearing No. 74, Himgiri Apartments Part­II, Mukundpura Extn., Burari, Delhi ad­measuring 200 sq.yds. It is further pleaded that the defendant no. 2 is the actual and rightful owner of the property presently bearing Municipal No. A/50/G­3, Himgiri Enclave, Near Transport Authority, Burari, Delhi. It is denied that the defendant No. 1 & 2 are living in the suit property in possession as trespasser's and claim that the defendant no.2 is the rightful and actual owner of the suit property since the year 1991. It is denied that the defendants are licensee inducted by the plaintiff. It is also denied that the plaintiff had purchased two alleged plots ad­measuring 133.1/2 sq. yds. and 66.2/3 sq. yds. on 21.02.1992 having two constructed rooms bearing the Khasra no.236 situated at Himgiri Enclave, Mukundpur, Delhi or they were ever in the possession of the said alleged property or joined the both the plots by raising a common boundary wall around them. It is also specifically denied that the defendant no.1 requested the plaintiff to permit him to live in the suit property as Care taker. It is pleaded that the defendants have a good source of income and the defendant no. 2 who is the wife of the defendant no.1 had purchased the plot of 200 sq. yds. in the year 1991 and was residing in the same since beginning. It is pleaded that earlier to purchasing of the plot they were having their ancestral property in Kurukushetra and hence the question of residing in Jhuggi is unsustainable and this alleged story of the plaintiff is a tool to hook up the defendants. The defendants have admitted that the defendant no. 2 had filed a suit for injunction before the court of law. It is pleaded that defendant filed Smt. Roop Kumari Solanki Vs. Peter John & Ors. (Suit No. 185/15) Page No. 6 of 15 the said suit against Shri R.K. Solanki as the husband of the plaintiff herein used to represent him as R.K. Solanki and used to issue threats to the defendants and also tried to dispossess the defendants herein from their property. It is further denied that the Shyam Singh filed any affidavit before any court of law that he has not the property to the defendant no. 2 and if he had done so the defendants reserve their right to take appropriate legal action against him for filing a false affidavit before the court. It is further denied that the plaintiff, her husband and one alleged person Shri Tara Chand visited the alleged suit property on 15.05.2000.