Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Kusum vs Om Prakash on 30 January, 2006

Rajinder Singh vs . Kusum & Ors on 14 January, 2019

2. The brief facts as averred in the plaint before Ld Trial Court is that Rajinder Singh Vs. Kusum Page No. 1 of 12 father of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 and defendant no. 2 namely Hemant (brother of plaintiff) was allotted a plot/property bearing no. O-12 (80 Sq Yds) situated at J.J. Colony, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) on 01.06.1961 under the terms and conditions of the Jhuggi jonpri removal scheme for residential purposes. The father of the plaintiff had expired on 26.12.1975 leaving behind his wife and two sons and three daughters which included plaintiff and defendant no. 2. It is further stated that in the year about 2003, defendant no. 2 who is the brother of the plaintiff tried to raise illegal construction over and the above the roof of the ground floor of the suit property through defendant no. 3 for which plaintiff made various complaints but of no avail and defendant no. 2 succeeded in raising illegal and unauthorized construction on the first floor and thereafter on 12.05.2007, plaintiff came to know that defendant no. 2 sold the first floor of the said premises to the defendant no. 4 through defendant no. 3 and thereafter defendant no. 2 & 3 started harassing the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit property and threatened her to raise illegal and unauthorized construction. It is further stated that plaintiff has filed a suit CS No 752/2009 titled as Kusum Vs Om Prakash for permanent injunction and declaration against the defendant no. 2, 3 & 4 herein for restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit property and in that suit defendant no. 2 herein filed the written statement disclosing that he has got mutation of the suit property in his favour on 05.02.2004 and also got executed the perpetual Rajinder Singh Vs. Kusum Page No. 2 of 12 lease deed dated 12.07.2004. It is further stated that defendant no. 2 has no right, title or interest for getting the said mutation and perpetual lease deed executed in his favour from the DDA as the suit property was originally allotted to Late Sh. Sarup Chand, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2, who had left behind his wife Smt Sanotsh Devi, two sons and three daughters at the time of his death. It is further stated that defendant no. 2 by submitting forged and false documents, had obtained the lease deed mutated in his favour without disclosing the legal heirs of Late Sh. Sarup Chand before concerned authority. It is further stated that Sh Om Prakash (defendant no. 3) also stood as witness to perpetual lease deed in collusion with the defendant no. 2. Thereafter the present suit was filed wherein the impugned order was passed.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Prakash vs . Kusum & Ors on 14 January, 2019

2. The brief facts as averred in the plaint before Ld Trial Court is that father of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 and defendant no. 2 namely Hemant Om Prakash Vs. Kusum Page No. 1 of 12 (brother of plaintiff) was allotted a plot/property bearing no. O-12 (80 Sq Yds) situated at J.J. Colony, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) on 01.06.1961 under the terms and conditions of the Jhuggi jonpri removal scheme for residential purposes. The father of the plaintiff had expired on 26.12.1975 leaving behind his wife and two sons and three daughters which included plaintiff and defendant no. 2. It is further stated that in the year about 2003, defendant no. 2 who is the brother of the plaintiff tried to raise illegal construction over and the above the roof of the ground floor of the suit property through defendant no. 3 for which plaintiff made various complaints but of no avail and defendant no. 2 succeeded in raising illegal and unauthorized construction on the first floor and thereafter on 12.05.2007, plaintiff came to know that defendant no. 2 sold the first floor of the said premises to the defendant no. 4 through defendant no. 3 and thereafter defendant no. 2 & 3 started harassing the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit property and threatened her to raise illegal and unauthorized construction. It is further stated that plaintiff has filed a suit CS No 752/2009 titled as Kusum Vs Om Prakash for permanent injunction and declaration against the defendant no. 2, 3 & 4 herein for restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit property and in that suit defendant no. 2 herein filed the written statement disclosing that he has got mutation of the suit property in his favour on 05.02.2004 and also got executed the perpetual lease deed dated 12.07.2004. It is further stated that defendant no. 2 has no Om Prakash Vs. Kusum Page No. 2 of 12 right, title or interest for getting the said mutation and perpetual lease deed executed in his favour from the DDA as the suit property was originally allotted to Late Sh. Sarup Chand, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2, who had left behind his wife Smt Sanotsh Devi, two sons and three daughters at the time of his death. It is further stated that defendant no. 2 by submitting forged and false documents, had obtained the lease deed mutated in his favour without disclosing the legal heirs of Late Sh. Sarup Chand before concerned authority. It is further stated that Sh Om Prakash (defendant no. 3) also stood as witness to perpetual lease deed in collusion with the defendant no. 2. Thereafter the present suit was filed wherein the impugned order was passed.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1