Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.4. Pursuant to the process issued by the court, the defendants appeared and contested the claim of the plaintif. At the very outset, they refuted the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintif and Sh.

Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 5 / 26 Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan (now deceased) and also raised the plea that the suit has been filed on false and concocted facts. Validity of rent deed too has been challenged and further alleged that the plaintif has filed the present suit on false and manufactured documents and further maintained that the plaintif has illegally disconnected the electricity supply of the suit property to evict them forcibly by adopting illegal manners. On merits, they denied the plaintif to be owner and landlord of the property in question, according to them, Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan (husband of the defendant no. 1 and father of the defendant no. 2) was the absolute owner of the suit property who was old and used to reside alone most of the time as his sons and wife usually are residing in USA and only after the death of Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan on the first week of August 2012, they came to know that Sh. Umesh Chandra, father of the plaintif in collusion with one Mr. Atul Jain and Sh. Alok Rattan has somehow by adopting illegal means got transferred the aforesaid house in the name of the plaintif who often used to meet Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan and used to enjoy liquor together. They alleged that the document as forged and procured one and they also denied the execution of rent deed dated 21.08.2006 and also disputed the conversion of freehold Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 6 / 26 ownership right from the DDA in favour of the plaintif or of her becoming the absolute owner. It is further averred that since the plaintif is harassing the defendants and wanted to dispossess the defendant no. 2 so he filed the civil suit which was subsequently withdrawn by the defendant no. 2 on 18.03.2013 with liberty to file comprehensive suit seeking cancellation of all the documents allegedly executed by Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan (now deceased). They also denied their liability to pay alleged arrears of rent and also mesne profits / damages as claimed by the plaintif and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7.5. As per her deposition, she purchased the suit property for sum of Rs.15,25,800/- out of which she paid Rs.14,9700/- by raising a loan from HSBC Bank and same was paid to Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan vide demand draft no. 207860 dated 10.02.2004 beside the remaining payment through other modes against receipts. She denied that all the documents so placed on record are procured documents. She also denied the suggestion that the said Sudarshan Kumar Mahajan did not execute the will in her favour. Her version stands corroborated by her father Sh. Umesh Chandra who appeared as PW3. He tendered his afidavit as PW3/A Suit No. 6637/2016 Page no. 13 / 26 where he fully supported the narration given by her daughter Ms. Smriti Sangeeta, the plaintif and deposed that his daughter was aged only 19 years when she purchased the suit property. He endorsed her version that she raised a loan Rs.14,97000 from the bank and he stood as a guarantor for the same pertaining to the loan and also admitted that the balance amount of Rs.18,800/- was paid by him to her. According to him, bank sanctioned the loan to her on the basis of her financial credential as well as after getting the property documents veracity, legality checked. He however, denied the suggestion that he used to get the documents executed from Sh. Sudarshan Mahajan in good faith and under the influence of liquor and also denied the suggestion that all the documents are procured documents.