Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The Appellant in the present Appeal is impugning the judgment dated 05.01.2022 ("Impugned judgment") in CS DJ No. 209865/2016 passed by the Court of learned ADJ-05, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi titled as „Smt. Gunjan Kumar v. Shri Vipin Kumar Parwanda & Anr.‟ Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the Suit for Injunction and Possession filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023: DHC: 2770

11.The learned Trial Court vide the Impugned judgment was pleased to allow the Suit for Injunction and Possession filed by Respondent No.1.

12.Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant preferred the present Regular First Appeal No. 125 of 2022, challenging the Impugned judgment. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that a separate Regular First Appeal has also been filed by Respondent No.2 before this Court against the Impugned judgment titled as Sarita Parwanda v. Mrs. Gunjan Kumar & Anr. in RFA No. 112 of 2022 which has jointly been heard before this Court. This Hon‟ble Court vide its order dated 30.03.2022 issued notice in RFA No. 112 of 2022 and on 31.05.2022 notice was issued in RFA No. 125 of 2022.

(c) Ex. DW1/X2, Agreement dated 07.09.2011 has been filed and relied by both the Appellant and Respondent No.2. The said Agreement has been entered between the Appellant and Respondent No.2 as First party and Sh. Rajesh Bindra, who is the brother of Respondent No.2 as Second party and Mr.Manoj Kumar and Mr. Ashish Uppal as Third party. Vide the said Agreement dated 07.09.2011, both the Appellant and Respondent No.2 admitted that they had sold the first floor of the plot bearing No. 139, Block A, Kalkaji Extension Scheme, NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023: DHC: 2770 New Delhi vide sale deed dated 26.09.2007 which is duly executed and registered by Defendant No.2. In the certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.09.2007 (Mark B), it is provided in specific terms that Smt. Sarita Parwanda had appointed Appellant as General power of Attorney vide registered document No. 9149 in Additional Book No. 4, Vol.

32.Further, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1, relied on the cross examination of D2W1/Statement of Mrs. Sarita Parwanda, wife of Sh. Vipin Kumar Parwanda, and rebutted the contention of Respondent No.2 that she is not aware of the Agreement to Sell dated 01.11.2009 which has been executed by her husband in favor of Respondent No.1. In the said cross-examination, Mrs. Sarita Parwanda admitted that her husband had executed an agreement to sell in favor of Respondent No.1.