Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: utsav vihar in Sh. Nirmal Midha vs Nirmal Midha & Ors 17/17 on 23 August, 2019Matching Fragments
1. Plaintiff has filed the suit through his SPA holder Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that plaintiff is the owner of the Suit No. 59910/16 Veer Chand Vs. Nirmal Midha & Ors 17/17 house no. 184185, Block A184/3, Utsav Vihar, Delhi110081 measuring 50 sq. yds consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing room, kitchen, latrine and bathroom shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred as "the suit property"). The suit property is part of property no. 184185 measuring 400 sq. yds out of Khasra No. 73/17 situated in area of village Karala abadi known as Utsav Vihar, A Block, Delhi110081(hereinafter referred as "the total property"). The total property consist of two build up portions / house of 50 sq. yds each and remaining area is vacant plot. The plaintiff purchased the total property from defendant no. 2 for Rs. 4 lacs and defendant no. 2 executed set of documents consisting of Agreement to Sell and purchase, Registered GPA, Will, Receipt, Possession Letter and Affidavit regarding suit property on 19.02.2003 in favour of plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 handed over possession of the total plot to the plaintiff and symbolic possession of suit property as it was in the possession of defendant no. 1 i.e. tenant of defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 1 was informed about the sale of suit property to the plaintiff and was directed to pay rent to the plaintiff henceforth.
12. UPC as Ex. PW3/13 to Ex. PW3/16 (colly)
13. Postal receipts dated 13.05.2009 as Ex. PW3/17 to Ex. PW3/20 (colly).
14. Postal receipt as Ex. PW3/23.
During his crossexamination, PW1 deposed that plaintiff is his brother in law and he did not remember the address of plaintiff in the year 2003. He shifted to Utsav Vihar in 2005 and has seen the suit property before purchase. Except PW3/7 all documents from Ex. PW3/2 to Ex. PW3/7 bears his signatures as a witness. The plaintiff and he did not go through the said documents at the time of their execution. He admitted that Ex. PW3/2, Ex. PW3/5 and Ex. PW3/6 did not bear signatures of plaintiff.
11.DW2 tender her evidence affidavit as Ex. DW2/A and relied upon the documents which are already Ex. PW3/3 to Ex. PW3/6, Ex. PW3/9 and Ex. PW3/10.
In her cross examination, she deposed that she is doing the business of property dealing alongwith her husband and properties are sold and purchased in Utsav Vihar by executing GPA, agreement to sell, Will, receipt, possession letter and affidavit. She have entire previous chain of documents pertaining to the total property but she has not filed it. She purchased the plot from Sh. Pradeep and all the original documents in her favour are Ex. DW2/X1 to Ex. DW2/X5, and these were given to the Veer Chand at the time of sale of plot. Agreement to sell Ex. DW2/X3 bears signatures of her husband at Point A and B. She has executed Ex. PW3/2 to Ex. PW3/7 in favour of plaintiff on 19.03.2003 and volunteered that these documents were purchased for obtaining loan of Rs. 1 lakh for treatment of her husband. GPA Ex. PW3/3 and Will Ex. PW3/4 were executed and registered with the Subregistrar in her presence. Veer Chand paid her Rs. 1 Suit No. 59910/16 Veer Chand Vs. Nirmal Midha & Ors 17/17 lakh in cash and site plan Ex. PW3/1 is a correct site plan. She denied that she was deposing falsely.