Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN SUKHIJA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE – 07, (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO. : 65/2015
UNIQUE CASE ID NO. : 611840/2016
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Ashok Kumari
W/o Sh. Jai Prakash
R/o B87, MIG PhaseIV,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi110052. ….Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Amar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Bidha Ram
R/o 6754, Third Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
2. Smt. Maya Devi
W/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o 6754, Fourth Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
3. Sh. Vikas @ Vicky
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 1 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
R/o 6754, Third Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
4. Sh. Deepak @ Ganesh @ Goldy
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o 6754, Fourth Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
5. Sh. Vijay @ Kalu
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o 6754, Fourth Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
6. Sh. Sanjay @ Chocha
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o 6754, Fourth Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi. ….Defendants
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DAMAGES/ MESNE PROFIT AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of institution of the Suit : 06/07/2012
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 04/07/2018
Date of Judgment : 30/07/2018
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 2 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
JUDGMENT
By way of present judgment, this court shall conscientiously
adjudicate upon suit for possession, damages/ mesne profit and
permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The
plaintiff has prayed for passing a decree of possession in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants in respect of the suit property i.e.
third floor and fourth floor of the property bearing no. 6754, Block No.
10, Street No.2, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi, shown in red colour in
the site plan. The plaintiff has also prayed for passing a decree of
damages/ mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants @ Rs.12,000/ per month w.e.f. May 2010 to May 2012 i.e.
total amount of Rs.2,88,000/ to onwards i.e. till handing over the
peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has
also prayed for passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the
defendants, their associates, attorneys, beneficiary, legal heirs,
representatives, agents, servants etc. from creating any third party
interest in the suit property.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 3 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT
Succinctly the necessary facts for just adjudication of the present suit,
as stated in the plaint, are as under:
(i) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of third floor and fourth
floor (Barsati) of the builtup property measuring 45 sq.
yds. bearing no. 6754, Block No.10, Street No.2, Dev
Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi vide Sale Deed dated
10/03/1993 (which was in the joint name of the plaintiff
and his brother namely Sh. Naveen Kumar) and registered
partition deed dated 04/05/2012.
(ii) The defendant no.1 is the natural father of the plaintiff,
who gave the plaintiff in adoption in her childhood to one
Sh. Giri Raj Kishore and since the childhood, the plaintiff
is living in the society as daughter of Sh. Giri Raj Kishore.
Defendant no.2 is wife of the brother (natural brother) of
the plaintiff namely Sh.Rajender Singh and whereas, the
defendant nos. 3 to 6 are the sons of Sh. Rajender Singh.
Defendant no.1 alongwith defendant no.3 and his wife
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 4 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
namely Smt. Neetu are living at the third floor of the property of
plaintiff except one room wherein one tenant of the plaintiff is residing.
The defendant nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are residing at the fourth floor of the
said property. The suit property i.e. third and fourth floors of the
property bearing no. 6754, Block No.10, Street No.2, Dev Nagar, Karol
Bagh, Delhi except one room (shown in green colour) on the third floor
which is in possession of the tenant of the plaintiff, is shown in red
colour in the site plan.
(iii) In the month of April 1998, the plaintiff had borrowed a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/ from the defendant no.1 against
which the plaintiff gave the possession of the suit property
to the defendant no.1 and his family members/ other
defendants and it was agreed that the defendant would not
pay any rent against using the suit property and on the
rent against using the suit property and on the other
hand, the plaintiff would not pay any interest on the said
borrowed amount of Rs.1,50,000/ at the time of
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 5 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
returning the said amount to the defendant no.1 and accordingly, the
defendant no.1 and his family members i.e. defendant nos. 2 to 6
started residing in the suit property of the plaintiff under the
ownership of the plaintiff.
(iv) That all the defendants had become dishonest and with
intention to grab the suit property of the plaintiff, asked
the plaintiff to return the aforesaid amount of Rs.1.50
Lakh alongwith interest amounting to Rs.11,50,000/.
When the plaintiff asked the defendant as to why he is
claiming such huge amount from the plaintiff against the
borrowed amount of Rs.1.50 Lakh, then all the defendants
threatened the plaintiff that they would not vacate the suit
property of the plaintiff unless the plaintiff would pay the
aforesaid illegal amount of Rs.11,50,000/ to the
defendants and in such situation, the plaintiff was
compelled to give undertaking to pay Rs.11.50 Lakh to the
defendants.
(v) In order to avoid any controversy and litigation, the
plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.9.00 Lakh to the defendant
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 6 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
no.1 as per written undertakings dated 17/11/2011 and
01/02/2012 duly signed by the plaintiff and defendant
nos. 1 and 3 and as per the undertakings, remaining
amount of Rs.2.50 Lakh was to be paid/ returned by the
plaintiff to the defendant no.1 on 15/04/2012. On
15/04/2012, when the plaintiff asked the defendant no.1
to receive the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.2.50 Lakh
and asked all the defendants to vacate the suit property of
the plaintiff, then all the defendants flatly refused to
vacate the suit property of the plaintiff as they wanted to
grab the suit property of the plaintiff despite this fact that
all the defendants have no right or interest on the suit
property of the plaintiff.
(vi) The defendants had given threats to the plaintiff to kill her
and her family members if she would take any action
against the defendants for vacating the suit property. In
this regard, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint against
all the defendants on 29/04/2012 in police station Prashant Nagar.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 7 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
(vii) The defendant no.1 alongwith other defendant nos. 2 to 6
have claimed interest on the amount of Rs.1.50 Lakh,
therefore, the plaintiff also has the right to claim damage/
rental charges against use of the suit property of the
plaintiff by all the defendants, therefore, the plaintiff is
legally entitled to get damages/mesne profit @ Rs.12,000/
per month from all the defendants jointly and severally for
the period of last three years onwards, which is legally
recoverable from the defendants, however, the plaintiff is
waiving/ relinquishing damages/ mesne profit @
Rs.12,000/ per month for a period of one year under
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Therefore, he is claiming damages/
mesne profit @ Rs.12,000/ per month for the last two
years onwards.
(viii) The plaintiff was/ is ready to pay/ return the balance
agreed amount of Rs.2,50,000/ to the defendants at the
time of vacating the suit property of the plaintiff, however,
the defendants would not ready to accept the same, hence
the plaintiff shall not be liable to pay any interest on the
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 8 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
aforesaid amount of Rs.2.50 Lakh when she will pay/
return the same to defendant no.1 as per the undertaking
at the time of vacating the said property. The amount of
Rs.2.50 Lakh shall be adjustable with the amount of
damages/ mesne profits of last two years onwards @
Rs.12,000/ p.m.
(ix) The defendants failed to vacate and handover the peaceful
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, the plaintiff
got issued a legal notice dated 17/05/2012 but despite the
service of legal notice, the defendants neither complied
with the notice nor replied the same till the date of filing of
the suit. After receiving the notice, the defendants, in
collusion, are threatening to the plaintiff to create third
party interest in the suit property just to defeat the right of
the plaintiff in the suit property and hence, the plaintiff
has apprehension that the defendants may create third
party interest in the suit property. It
has been stated that the defendants have become
unauthorized occupants in the suit property and therefore,
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 9 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
all of them are jointly/ severally liable to pay damages/
mesne profit @ Rs.12,000/ per month, w.e.f. May 2010 till
handingover the vacant and peaceful possession of the
suit property to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT
Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants and
the defendants have filed common written statement. Succinctly, the
case of the defendants is as under:
(i) The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands
and has suppressed the true and material facts. All the
false, frivolous, baseless and fabricated allegations have
been leveled by the plaintiff in the suit with ulterior
motives to create false evidence and to mislead this court
and to harass and blackmail the defendants and to cause
them more and more mental tortures and agonies.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 10 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
(ii) The plaintiff has got no right, title, interest or locusstandi
in the suit property and she has filed the false suit just to
harass and blackmail the defendants and to extort money
from them and to throw out them from their own property
as the defendants are living in the suit property in their
own rights as owners of the same.
(iii) The suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous, malafide and
without any substance or cause of action and the same is
liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 11 CPC.
(iv) It has been stated that value of the suit property is more
than Rs.1.50 Crores and the plaintiff has not paid the
advalorem court fee over the suit property. In view of the
huge value of the suit property, the suit is beyond the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and the same deserves
to be dismissed with special cost u/s. 35A CPC. The suit
is false, groundless and malafide on the face of it and the
same is not maintainable.
(v) On merits, the contents of the plaint have been denied and
it has been stated that in the year 1949, at the age of
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 11 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
11 years, the defendant no.1 came to live with his elder
sister namely Son Devi. The motherinlaw of Smt. Son
Devi, namely Smt. Surjo Devi executed a Will with regard
to the abovesaid property in favour of Smt. Son Devi.
Later on, Smt. Surjo Devi died and Smt. Son Devi got the
said property mutated in her name and thus, Sh. Amar
Singh and his entire family members, including the
plaintiff, Smt.Ashok Kumari started living in the said
property.
(vi) Smt. Surjo Devi had purchased the suit property for a total
sale consideration of Rs.450/ and this property was got
purchased by Smt. Surjo Devi through defendant no.1 and
at that time, the defendant no.1 and his family members
started living in the said property. At that time, the said
property was having only one room and verandah and
Kachi Barsati and later on, the defendant no.1 alongwith
his sons have spent a huge amount of money over the
construction of the said property from time to time and
they all, including the present plaintiff, being
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 12 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
the daughter of defendant no.1, continued living in the said property
and upto the year 1992, the defendant no.1 spent a lot of money over
the construction of the said property and got constructed the ground
and first floors of the said property.
(vii) The husband of Smt. Son Devi had absconded in the
company of some other lady and since then, his
whereabouts are not known and the entire responsibility of
Smt. Son Devi fell on the shoulders of defendant no.1. It
has further been stated that defendant no.1 is the natural
father of the plaintiff and for some years, Shri Giri Raj
Kishore kept the plaintiff with him but after some years
when she was of the marriageable age, she returned to the
company of the defendant no.1 and then defendant no.1
and his wife had performed her marriage and spent a lot of
money over her marriage.
(viii) The relationship between the parties has not been denied
and it has been stated that defendant no.1 alongwith
defendant no.3 and his wife Smt. Neetu are living at the
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 13 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
third floor of the said property.
The defendant nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are residing at the fourth floor of the
said property. It has further been stated that alongwith Smt. Son Devi
(owner of the said property), all the defendants with their family
members used to live in the property bearing no. 6754, Block No.10,
Street No.2, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 as joint owners
of the said property.
(ix) It has been admitted that the plaintiff that the plaintiff had
borrowed a sum of Rs.1.50 Lakh from the defendant no.1
and the possession of the said property was handed over
to the defendant no.1, however, the defendants are the
lawful occupants in their own rights in the said property.
The story of the plaintiff of nonpayment of rent by the
defendants and nonpayment of interest by the plaintiff is
false, forged and fabricated. There was no question of the
defendants paying any rent to the plaintiff as the property
belonged to Smt. Son Devi and after her
death, the said property devolved upon the defendant
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 14 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
no.1 as her husband had run away in the company of some other lady
and Smt. Son Devi did not leave any other legal heir except the
defendant no.1.
(x) The defendants are living in the said property since very
beginning in their own rights and the plaintiff has got no
right, title, interest or locusstandi in the said property.
Further, it is stated that plaintiff has not refunded the loan
of Rs.1.50 Lakh to the defendant no.1 in spite of demands.
It has been stated that plaintiff had obtained some
signatures and thumb impressions of the defendants
namely Sh. Amar Singh and Vikas @ Vicky on some
papers and it is apprehended that the same might have
been misused by the plaintiff. Further, it has been stated
that the tenant in the said property is under the
defendants, who are the lawful owners and in physical
possession of the suit property.
(xi) It is a matter of surprise and highly unbelievable that just
within six months, after the first sale of ground floor, Smt.
Son Devi sold the remaining property to the plaintiff
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 15 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
and no details of the alleged remaining portion have been
given.
(xii) That on the date of alleged sale i.e. 10/03/1993, the suit
property consisted of only ground floor, first floor and
Barsati at the first floor and further at that time, the
defendants alongwith the plaintiff were residing on the first
floor and Barsati of the said property as the ground floor of
the suit property had already been sold by Smt. Son Devi
to some third party for Rs.4,70,000/ and after six months
thereafter, the alleged sale was shown by Smt. Son Devi in
favour of the plaintiff for the remaining portion of the said
property and the sale consideration has only been shown
only Rs.70,000/, which is highly unbelievable on the face
of it. This shows that the alleged sale deed is false, forged
and sham document.
(xiii) Thereafter, defendant no.1 and his sons and other
defendants had spent a lot of money over the construction
of the second floor, third floor and Barsati of
the said property and they are living therein. This also
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 16 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
shows that the alleged sale deed/ alleged transaction is false, forged
and fabricated and consequently, even the partition deed is also false
and fabricated and since the very beginning till date the defendants
were/ are living on the second floor, third floor and Barsati of the said
property.
(xiv) The plaintiff has not placed on record any site plan of the
alleged sold portion and the allegations of the plaintiff are
wrong, false and fabricated. The defendants are not liable
to vacate and handover the possession of the suit
property to the plaintiff or to pay the damages/ mesne
profits @ Rs.12,000/ p.m. There is no unauthorized use
of the suit property.
(xv) The notice of the plaintiff is wrong, false, uncalled for and
unwarranted and the same was duly replied by the
defendants vide reply dated 28/05/2012. It has further
been stated that defendants are lawful owners and in
physical possession of the suit property in their own
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 17 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
rights and plaintiff has no right to cast clouds over the rights of the
plaintiff qua the suit property.
REPLICATION AND ISSUES
The plaintiff filed replication and controverting the assertion made in
the WS and reiterated the contents of the plaint. It has been stated
averred :
(a) The plaintiff was born in 1954 and hence, she cannot say as to
whether the defendant no.1 came to live with his elder sister
Smt. Son Devi in the year 1949.
(b) When the plaintiff was living with her adoptive mother Smt. Son
Devi, she as well as her adoptive mother got constructed the
ground and first floor of the property in question in the year
1986. Smt. Son Devi spent the entire money over the marriage
of the plaintiff. When the defendants used to live in the
property, Smt. Son Devi was the exclusive owner of the property.
(c) The aforesaid Smt. Son Devi sold the property in the joint names
of plaintiff and Sh. Naveen Kumar on 10/03/1993 and Smt. Son
Devi was expired on 14/01/2006.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 18 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
(d) It has been denied that plaintiff has not refunded the amount of
Rs.1.50 Lakh to the defendant no.1 and it is submitted that the
plaintiff has already returned Rs.9.00 Lakh including interest.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld.
Predecessor of this Court on 01/07/2013:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts? If
so, its effects. OPD.
2. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of
CPC? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit property for the
purpose of court fees? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession of the suit
property? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/ mesne profits ? If so,
at what rate and for which period? OPP.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction,
as prayed? OPP.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 19 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
7. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS AND
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THEM
Plaintiff, in order to prove her case, led plaintiff evidence and got
examined herself PW1 and tendered her evidence through affidavit
Ex. PW1/A. She has relied upon the following documents:
(a) Sale Deed dated 10/03/1993 as Ex.PW1/1;
(b) Partition Deed dated 04/05/2012 as Ex.PW1/2;
(c) Site Plan as Ex.PW1/3;
(d) copies of written undertakings dated 17/11/2011 and
01/02/2012 as Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 respectively;
(e) copy of complaint dated 29/04/2012 as Ex.PW1/6;
(f) Legal notice dated 17/05/2012 as Ex.PW1/7;
(g) six postal receipts and speed post as Ex.PW1/8 (Colly.);
(h) six track reports of speed post as Ex.PW1/9 (Colly.).
Plaintiff besides herself has also examined the following witnesses:
(a) Sh. Mahender Singh as PW2, who tendered his evidence
through affidavit Ex.PW2/A.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 20 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
(b) Sh. Naveen Kumar as PW3, who tendered his evidence through
affidavit Ex.PW3/A.
(c) Sh. S.K. Sharma, LDC from the office of SubRegistrarIII, Asaf
Ali Road, Daryaganj, Delhi as PW4.
(d) Sh. Khube Ram, Constable, Belt No. 1531/C from P.S. Prashant
Nagar, Delhi as PW5.
(e) Sh. Rajpal, SubRegistrarIII, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi as PW6.
(f) Sh. Naveen Gandas, Record Lifter, Department of Delhi
Archives, New Delhi as PW7.
(g) Sh. D.C. Tuteja, Advocate as PW8.
To rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendants led DE and examined
defendant no.1 as D1W1, who tendered his evidence through affidavit
Ex. D1. He has relied upon copies of the entries of purchase of
material for construction of the property which is Mark “S” (Colly.).
This court heard the final arguments, as advanced by Ld. counsel for
the defendants and perused the material available on record. The Ld.
counsel for the plaintiff was given the opportunity to address the
arguments but he has failed to address the arguments. However, the
written arguments/submissions were already on the record.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 21 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS:
ISSUE NO.2
2. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of
CPC? OPD.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants but they have
failed to lead any evidence regarding this issue. The defendants have
also failed to demonstrate why the plaint is required to be rejected.
Otherwise also, for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the
averments made in the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff are
to be looked into. The averments in the plaint which are also stated
above vividly depict the cause of action for filing of the suit in favour of
the plaintiff against the defendants. Accordingly, this issue is decided
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.3
3. Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit property for the purpose
of court fees? OPD.
The defendants have alleged in the written statement the valuation of
the suit property is Rs.1,50,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs
only) but the defendants have failed to lead any evidence on this
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 22 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
aspect. The valuation which is averred by the plaintiff in the plaint has
not been rebutted by the defendants by leading any evidence.
Accordingly, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants.
ISSUE NOS.1, 4, 5 AND 6
1. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts? If so,
its effects. OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession of the suit
property? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/ mesne profits ? If so, at
what rate and for which period? OPP.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction,
as prayed? OPP.
The aforesaid issue nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are interrelated and inter
connected to each other and accordingly, they are decided together:
ADMITTED FACS
i. Smt. Surjo Devi had purchased the suit property and she was
owner of the property. In the written statement, it was averred
that defendant no.1 has contributed towards purchase of the
property but it was admitted by defendant no.1 in his cross
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 23 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
examination that he did not contribute anything in the purchase of
the property by Smt. Surjo Devi.
ii. The motherinlaw of Smt. Son Devi, namely Smt. Surjo Devi,
executed a Will with regard to the abovesaid property in favour of
Smt. Son Devi. Later on, Smt. Surjo Devi died and Smt. Son Devi
got the said property mutated in her name.
iii. The defendants have never challenged the registered Sale Deed
(Exhibit PW1/1) dated 10.03.1993 by filing the counterclaim or by
separate suit, although, the defendants claimed in the written
statement that the Sale Deed dated 10.03.1993 is false, fabricated
and forged document.
VALIDITY OF SALE DEED DATED 10/03/1993 EX.PW1/1
The defendants have strenuously argued, which they have also
agitated in the written statement, evidence by way of affidavit and
written arguments that the said sale deed is a false, forged and
fabricated document. The defendants have not pleaded the
entire/complete particulars, as per the mandate of Order 6 Rule 4
CPC read with Order 8 Rule 2 CPC. It is apt to refer the Judgment
passed in Bishundeo Narain Anr. v. Seogeni Rai Jagernath,
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 24 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
AIR 1951 SC 280, while dealing with the issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held:
“….in cases of fraud, ‘undue influence’ and coercion,
the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars
and the case can only be decided on the particulars
as laid. There can be no departure from them in evi
dence. General allegations are insufficient even to
amount to an averment of fraud of which any court
ought to take notice however strong the language in
which they are couched may be, and the same ap
plies to undue influence and coercion.”
The provisions of Order 6 Rule 4 and Order 8 Rule 2 CPC are
reproduced herein for apposite understanding:
“ORDER VI
Pleadings generally
……………
“4. Particulars to be given where necessary.–In all cases in
which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud,
breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all
other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such
as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates
and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.”
“ORDER VIII
[Written statement, setoff and counterclaim]
…….
“2. New facts must be specially pleaded.–The defendant
must raise by his pleading all matters which show the suit not
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 25 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
be maintainable, or that the transaction is either void or void
able in point of law, and all such grounds of defence as, if not
raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or
would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint, as, for in
stance, fraud, limitation, release, payment, performance, or facts
showing illegality.”
The defendants alleged in para no.1 in reply on merits of the written
statement that the Sale Deed (Exhibit PW1/1) is false, forged and
fabricated. On the basis of the said reply, the defendants want to raise
the ground of suit not being maintainable and showing the illegality of
the Sale Deed by making averment in reply to para no.1. However, in
terms of provisions under Order 6 Rule 4 read with Order 8 Rule 2
CPC, it is the mandatory duty of the defendants to provide the
complete particulars regarding false, forgery and fabrication. The
defendants have made the bald averment without specifying the
details, in what manner the Sale Deed Ex.PW1/1 is a false, forged
and fabricated document. The defendants were also required to prove
that how come the registered Sale Deed, which was executed by Smt.
Son Devi in favour of the plaintiff, is a false, forged
and fabricated document. The entire crossexamination of the
defendants was based on the facts which were never pleaded or
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 26 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
averred by the defendants and the defendants cannot be allowed to
take shelter of the bald or vague averments.
As submitted above at the cost of repetition that the bald allegations
were raised in the written statement, that the Sale Deed being false,
forged and fabricated document but no particulars, as required under
Order 6 Rule 4 read with Order 8 Rule 2 CPC, were pleaded or averred
by the defendants. It is admitted case of the parties that the mother
inlaw of Smt. Son Devi, namely Smt. Surjo Devi, was the owner of the
property and she had executed a Will with regard to the abovesaid
property in favour of Smt. Son Devi. Later on, Smt. Surjo Devi died
and Smt. Son Devi got the said property mutated in her name. The
defendants have categorically admitted this fact in the written
statement.
The plaintiff, in order to prove the Sale Deed Exhibit PW1/1, has
examined herself as PW1 and has also examined Shri D.C. Tuteja,
Advocate PW8 (attesting witness of Ex. PW1/1).
Sh. D.C. Tuteja, Advocate, who had attested the said Sale Deed as
witness, has categorically identified the signatures of the vendor i.e.
Smt. Son Devi as well his signature and other witness namely
Gurjamal. The said witness has candidly proved the execution of the
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 27 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
Sale Deed by Late Smt. Son Devi and the same was never challenged
at any point of time by her during her lifetime. The defendants have
failed to shake the testimonies of PW1 and PW8 in material
particulars.
The defendant no.1 in his deposition has stated that he has not visited
the office of SubRegistrar for execution of the Sale Deed and the same
was executed in his absence. However, the defendant no.1 has
candidly admitted in the crossexamination that another witness
namely Sh. Gujarmal is a friend of defendant no.1.
The defendants were the third parties to the said Sale Deed and
admittedly, the said Sale Deed was not executed in their presence. The
defendants have failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to
demolish the said Sale Deed. The defendants have failed to bring on
record any evidence including the evidence of expert witness that the
Sale Deed does not bear the signatures of Late Shri Son Devi. On the
contrary, the plaintiff has successfully proved the Sale Deed Ex.PW
1/1 by cogent and convincing evidence.
The plaintiff has even called the witnesses i.e. PW6 and PW7 from
the SubRegistrar Offices in order to prove the registration but the
said witnesses were putting the burden on each other. The PW6 has
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 28 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
submitted that the summoned record has been transferred to
Department of Delhi Archives, 18A, Satsang Vihar Marg, Qutab
Institutional Area, New Delhi and PW7 submitted that record has not
been transferred to Department of Delhi Archives 18A, Satsang Vihar
Marg, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. However, the original Sale
Deed was produced before the Court and PW8 who was the attesting
witness to the said Sale Deed was also examined by the plaintiff in
order to prove the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/1.
The defendants have also failed to challenge the said registered Sale
Deed Ex.PW1/1 by filing the separate case or counterclaim. The
defendants were having the opportunity to seek a declaration for
cancellation of the said document but they have failed to do so. The
contention of the defendants in the written statement is that they
came to know about the Sale Deed for the first time only when the
legal notice was served upon them. Even assuming for the sake of
arguments that they came to know about the Sale Deed for the first
time when the legal notice was served upon them, still they have not
chosen to file any case challenging the said Sale Deed Ex.PW1/1
either by filing independent suit or counterclaim in the present case.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 29 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
The defendants have also candidly admitted the ownership of the
plaintiff in the Suit property in undertakings Ex. PW1/4 and Ex.PW
1/5. The detailed discussions and findings regarding the said
undertakings are done hereinbelow. In reply to para no.6 of the plaint,
the defendants have first of all admitted that the possession of the suit
property was handedover to defendant no.1 and in the same para
contended that defendants are the lawful occupants in their own
rights in the said property. The defendants were blowing hot and cold
in the same breath. The reply of the defendants is totally oxymoron i.e.
contradictory statements which cannot stand together. The defendants
have in effect admitted the ownership in para no.5 of the reply on
merits.
Considered from any view point and also in my considered opinion,
the plaintiff has successfully proved Ex.PW1/1 i.e. Sale Deed dated
10/03/1993 vide which Smt. Son Devi had sold the suit property
jointly to the plaintiff and Shri Naveen Kumar.
ADOPTION OF PLAINTIFF BY SMT. SON DEVI AND SHRI GIRI RAJ
KISHORE
The defendants have vehemently argued that the plaintiff was not
adopted by Smt. Son Devi and Shri Giri Raj Kishore. It is an
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 30 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
admitted case of the parties that Smt. Son Devi and Shri Giri Raj
Kishore, the husband of Smt. Son Devi were issueless. The defendant
no.1, who is the real father of the plaintiff, has categorically admitted
in his crossexamination (done on 15/05/2014) that in the school
records of the plaintiff, the name of Shri Giri Raj Kishore as father of
the plaintiff is recorded. It is also admitted that he has no document
to show that the plaintiff continued to be her daughter.
It is well settled principle of law that there is no requirement of formal
written document for the Adoption Deed. The adoption can be done
simply by giving and taking of a child in terms of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act.
It is also admitted in the evidence by way of affidavit as well as written
statement filed by defendants that the plaintiff remained with Smt.
Son Devi and Shri Giri Raj Kishore, however, it is stated that she
remained for sometime and after that she came back with Shri Amar
Singh. However, the defendants have failed to produce any cogent
evidence to disprove the fact that the plaintiff was not adopted by Smt.
Son Devi and Shri Giri Raj Kishore.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 31 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
The plaintiff has also examined PW2 Shri Mahender Singh (who is the
grandson of defendant no.1) and PW3 Shri Naveen Kumar (who is the
son of the plaintiff) to prove that the plaintiff was, in fact, living with
Smt. Son Devi and Shri Giri Raj Kishore and the plaintiff was living
with them as their daughter.
The defendants are not able to shake the testimonies of PW1, PW2
and PW3 in material particulars regarding the fact that the plaintiff
was not the adoptive daughter of Smt. Son Devi and Shri Giri Raj
Kishore. It is further admitted by defendant no.1 himself that in the
school records also, name of Shri Giri Raj Kishore is recorded as father
of the plaintiff. Thus, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff has been
able to prove that she was the adopted daughter of Late Smt. Son Devi
and Shri Giri Raj Kishore by leading the cogent and convincing
evidence. Otherwise also, the plaintiff has proved Ex.PW1/1 i.e. Sale
Deed by which the plaintiff and Sh. Naveen Kumar became owners of
the suit property.
UNDERTAKINGS DATED 17.11.2011 AND 01.02.2012 (EX.PW1/4
PW1/5 RESPECTIVELY)
The aforesaid undertakings are the germane of the present case. The
entire contention of the plaintiff is that the said undertakings were
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 32 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
forcefully taken from the plaintiff. She has also lodged a complaint
dated 29/04/2012 Ex.PW1/6. The defendants have taken a stand in
the written statement that the said undertakings were never executed
or signed by the all the defendants. There is a categorical stand of the
defendants in the written statement as well as in the evidence that the
plaintiff has concocted the story regarding the undertakings and it is
also averred that the plaintiff has obtained some signatures and
thumb impressions of the defendants namely Sh. Amar Singh and Sh.
Vikas @ Vicky on some papers and it is apprehended that the same
might have been used by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is an influential
rich person with political support. However, it is pleaded and argued
that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ (Rupees One Lakh fifty thousand
only) was borrowed by the plaintiff from the defendants. In para no. 7
of the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that she has paid an amount of
Rs.9,00,000/ as per undertakings dated 01/02/2012 and the
balance amount of Rs.2.50 Lakh was required to be paid by the
plaintiff to defendant no.1 on 15/04/2012. In reply to this para, it
has been averred by the defendants that the defendant no.1 Sh.Amar
Singh and his son namely Shri Rajender Singh from their own funds
have made the construction over the said house and the plaintiff has
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 33 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
not refunded the huge amount of money to the defendants Shri Amar
Singh and Sh. Vikas.
The perusal of the undertaking Ex.PW1/4 reveals that the amount of
Rs.1,50,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) was borrowed
by the defendants in the year 1998 to the plaintiff and the said
amount was increased from Rs.1.50 Lakh to Rs.11.00 Lakh. The said
undertaking was signed by defendant no.1 and Shri Vikas. It is also
recorded in the said undertaking that an amount of Rs.4,50,000/
(Rupees Four Lakh and fifty thousand only) has already been received
and the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/ (Rupees Seven Lakh only)
was required to be paid. It is also recorded in the undertaking that the
plaintiff is the owner of the property alongwith Shri Naveen Kumar
and the said property was mortgaged in lieu of the payment of
Rs1,50,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) to the plaintiff.
Similarly, in the undertaking Ex.PW1/5, it has been recorded that
an amount of Rs.9,00,000/ (Rupees Nine Lakh only) has been
received by the defendants and the balance sum of Rs.2,50,000/
(Rupees Two Lakh fifty thousand only) was required to be paid by the
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 34 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
plaintiff to the defendants. The said undertakings were also signed by
the defendant no.1 and Shri Vikas @ Vicky i.e. defendant no.3.
The said documents revealed that an amount of Rs.1.50 Lakh was
advanced as loan to Smt. Ashok Kumari i.e. the plaintiff by the
defendants, however, it is also stated in the documents that the
property is mortgaged with them.
In case, the amount of loan is Rs.100/ and above and in order to
secure the said loan, an immovable property is given as security, then
the mortgage document other than mortgage by title deeds has to be
compulsorily registered under the mandate of Section 59 of the
Transfer of Property Act.
In this case, there is no pleading, ground or averment raised by the
defendants that the said property in question was mortgaged by the
plaintiff to the defendants at any point of time. Moreover, the
Mortgage Deed was required to be compulsorily registered in
accordance with law i.e. under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property
Act. There is no registered document on the record which shows that
the property is mortgaged. Per contra, the entire case of the
defendants was based on the premise that they are owners of the
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 35 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
property and the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the said
property. The defendants have utterly failed to prove on record any
ownership document in their favour.
The cumulative effect of the said undertakings Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW
1/5 depicts that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty
thousand only) was taken as a loan by the plaintiff and she has
already returned an amount of Rs.9,00,000/ (Rupees Nine Lakh only)
to the defendants against the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/. Thus, the
plaintiff has returned almost six times of the original principal amount
to the defendants.
That factum of ownership of the plaintiff and Sh. Naveen Kumar of the
suit property has been categorically and candidly admitted in the said
documents by defendant no.1 and Shri Vikas @ Vickydefendant no.3.
The said undertakings have also been categorically admitted by
defendant no.1 in his crossexamination.
The said undertakings were in the knowledge of the defendants but
they have failed to file any counterclaim or claim in respect of the
balance due amount. As demonstrated above, the said document
cannot be considered as a mortgage document in any circumstances
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 36 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
whatsoever. As per the said documents, the defendants have admitted
the coownership of the plaintiff in the property in question.
In the crossexamination dated 15.05.2014, the defendant no.1
submitted that Smt. Ashok Kumari i.e. plaintiff has returned
Rs.3,00,000/ as well as a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ and Rs.99,600/ out
of total borrowed amount of Rs.11,50,000/. The said undertakings
dated 17.11.2011 and 01.02.2012 (Ex.PW1/4 Ex.PW1/5
respectively) were also admitted and further the said undertakings
were executed for return of money by Smt. Ashok Kumari to them.
The defendant no.1 also admitted that the said undertaking bears his
signature alongwith signature of his son Vikas and witnesses
Mahender Singh and Naveen Kumar. The witnesses to the said
undertakings i.e. Mahender Singh and Naveen Kumar were also
examined as PW2 and PW3 respectively.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY
The defendants have vehemently argued that the property was
constructed by the funds of defendant no.1 and his sons. It is
contended that defendant no.1 and his son has carriedout the
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 37 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
construction of the ground floor and first floor of the said property and
the entire money on the construction was spent by them.
The defendant no.1 has failed to place on record any documentary
evidence or even failed to prove even a single document to fortify the
fact that the ground floor, first floor and barsati floor of the property
45 sq. yds. bearing no. 6754, Block No.10, Street No.2, Dev Nagar,
Karol Bagh, Delhi were constructed by defendant on.1 and his sons.
The copy of entries of purchase of material which is alleged to be
MarkS has not been proved in accordance with law. The same is only
marked document. The defendants have failed to lead any cogent
evidence in this respect.
In reply to para no.7 of the plaint, the defendants have contended that
the construction over the said house raised by the defendant no.1 Shir
Amar Singh and his son namely Shri Rajinder Singh etc. from their
own funds resources and the plaintiff has not refunded the huge
amount of money to the defendants – Sh. Amar Singh and Sh. Vikas.
Even for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that defendant no.1
and his sons have constructed the property but they have not filed
any separate claim or counterclaim for recovery of the said
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 38 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
construction amount. In case they have constructed the property,
which admittedly does not belong to them and was belonged to Smt.
Son Devi, then the only claim which left with them is to claim the
amount of construction but they have failed to do so.
However, in my considered opinion, there is not even a scintilla of
evidence which the defendants have proved on record to demonstrate
that they have carriedout the construction, as alleged by them in the
Written Statement or in the evidence of DW1.
PARTITION BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND NAVEEN KUMAR
The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has purchased the
property jointly with Shri Naveen Kumar (Son of Amar Singh) vide
Exhibit PW1/1. The property was divided by them vide Partition Deed
vide Exhibit PW1/2. Accordingly, vide said Partition Deed, Shri
Naveen Kumar became exclusive owner of the 1st and 2nd floors of
property bearing no.6745, Gali No.2, Dev Nagar, Block10, Delhi and
the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of 3rd and 4th floors of the said
property with terrace rights.
The said Partition Deed was proved by the plaintiff by examining
herself, PW3 Shri Naveen Kumar and PW4 Shri S.K. Sharma,
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 39 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
official from SubRegistrar Office. The said Partition Deed dated
4.5.2012 is a registered document and the same has been proved on
record by the Executants of the said document. In view of the said
Partition Deed Exhibit PW1, the plaintiff became exclusive owner of
the suit property in question.
DEFENDANTS PERMISSIVE USER IN THE SUIT PROPERTY
The entire case of the defendants, as averred in the written statement
and evidence, is that they are owners of the suit property in question.
However, they have failed to place on record even a single document to
show that they are the owners of the suit property. There is categorical
admission on the part of the defendants that Smt. Surjo Devi was the
original owner of the property and after her, Smt. Son Devi was the
owner of the property. There is not even iota or scintilla of evidence
which has been produced on record by the defendants regarding
devolution of their ownership from the said persons. The defendants
have miserably failed to prove their ownership in the suit property.
The plaintiff, as demonstrated above, proved her ownership in the suit
property. This Court has returned the findings, as adumbrated above
that the plaintiff has duly proved the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/1
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 40 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
and Partition Deed Ex. PW1/2. It is not in dispute that defendant
no.1 is the brother of Late Smt. Son Devi and real father of the
plaintiff. The other defendants are also related to Late Smt. Son Devi
and the plaintiff and accordingly, they are near relatives of the
plaintiff. The defendants at the most can be termed as Permissive
users in the suit property being near relatives of Late Smt. Son Devi
and the plaintiff. The principles of Permissive user are described as
under:
PRINCIPLES OF PERMISSIVE USER
It is apposite to mention here the dictums of the Hon’ble Apex Court
reported as “A.Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vasathu
Mudalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam AIR 2012 SC 2010”
“Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De
Sequeria AIR 2012 SC 1727”. The Three Judge Bench Judgment of
“Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes” of the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held to the following effect in paras no.70 and 101:
“70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must
give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only
illustrative and not exhaustive.
(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the property;
(b) title of the property;
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 41 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
(c) who is in possession of the title documents;
(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to possession;
(e) the date of entry into possession;
(f) how he came into possession whether he purchased the
property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other
method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration;
if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or
lease amount;
(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease – then insist on rent
deed, license deed or lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in possession/ occupation or otherwise
living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or
servants etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have
extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift
therein; and
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue
in possession.
“101. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as
under:
1. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to
stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of
years or decades such person would not acquire any right or in
terest in the said property.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 42 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
2. Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in
the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or
servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.
3. The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a
caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the
premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or
as a servant.
4. The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to
the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease
agreement or license agreement in his favour.
5. The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on
behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatso
ever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or
possession.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court has followed the aforesaid Judgments in Civil
Appeal no. 150 of 2017 Behram Tejani Ors. Versus Azeem Jagani
dated January 6, 2017 by the para nos.9, 13 and 14 of the said
Judgment are reproduced as under:
“9. Appearing for the defendantsappellants Mr. Dushyant Dave,
learned Senior Advocate submitted that the High Court had erred
in granting interim relief in favour of the respondent. He submitted
that the reliance on Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRS. v. M.
Varadappa Naidu(Dead) by LRs. And Anrs.1 was completely
erroneous; that the respondent, at best, was a relative staying with
a gratuitous licensee; and that the case was covered by the decision
of this Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and
others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead ) through LRS.2.Ms.
Indu Malhotra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the plaintiffrespondent submitted that the respondent had been
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 43 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
in settled possession and as such was entitled to protection. In her
submission, the matter was fully covered by the decision of this
Court in Rame Gowda (supra).”
“13. The matter was further elaborated in subsequent decision
of this Court in Maria Margarida (Supra) as under :
“97. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as
under:
(1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to
stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of
years or decades such person would not acquire any right or in
terest in the said property.
(2) Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in
the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or
servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.
(3) The courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a
caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the
premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or
as a servant.
(4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to
the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease
agreement or license agreement in his favour.
(5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on
behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatso
ever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or
possession.”
“14. Thus, a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the
capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right
or interest in the property and even long possession in that ca
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 44 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
pacity would be of no legal consequences. In the circumstances
City Civil Court was right and justified in rejecting the prayer for
interim injunction and that decision ought not to have been set
aside by the High Court. We therefore, allow the appeal, set
aside the judgment under appeal and restore the Order dated
29.04.2013 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of
Motion No.344 of 2013 in Suit No.408 of 2013.”
The principles, as deduced above, vividly depict that no one ac
quires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the
premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades,
such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said prop
erty. Therefore, even if the defendants have shown their long posses
sion from the documents, yet they would not acquire any right, title
and interest in the property. Although, the defendants have failed to
prove the documents regarding their long possession, yet in my con
sidered opinion, the said documents are of no help to create any own
ership rights in the said property.
It is also held that the courts are not justified in protecting the posses
sion of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in
the premises as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant and has to
give possession forthwith on demand.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 45 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
The defendants being in permissive user were/are liable to give the
possession forthwith on demand. The plaintiff has served the Legal
Notice dated 17.5.2012 on the defendants but they have failed to give
the possession to the plaintiff on demand. Accordingly, the plaintiff
was constrained to file the present suit.
QUESTION OF MESNE PROFITS
The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.12,000/ per month w.e.f. May
2010 to May 2012 towards arrears and pendentlite and future mesne
profits but the plaintiff has not led any independent evidence that the
suit property can fetch an amount of Rs.12,000/ per month as rent.
The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff in her
affidavit of evidence has deposed that she can fetch an amount of
Rs.12,000/ per month from the said property. The defendants have
not even crossexamined the plaintiff on this aspect. The defendants in
their pleadings and defendant no.1 in his evidence only stated that
since the defendants are the owners of the property in question, there
fore, there is no question of any mesne profits or adjustment of mesne
profits with the sum of Rs.2,50,000/ with the mesne profits.
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 46 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
However, defendant no.1 in his evidence has not denied that the prop
erty can fetch Rs.12,000/ per month.
Although, no independent evidence has been led by the plaintiff to
prove that she is entitled to the quantum of mesne profits, as claimed
by him but the plaintiff has proved that the defendants are in unau
thorized possession of the suit premises after service of Legal Notice
dated 17.5.2012 and therefore, she is entitled to claim mesne profits.
In Surinder Singh v. Dr. Davinder Mohan, 2006 (4) R.C.R (Civil) 781 it
was held “mesne profits or compensation for the use and occupation of
the premises has to be assessed at the same rate at which the land
lord would have been able to let out the premises on being vacated by
the tenant. While determining the quantum of the amount so receiv
able by the landlord, the landlord is not bound by the contractual rate
of rent which was prevalent prior to the date of the decree.”
In this case, the plaintiff has led her own evidence regarding the rate
of mesne profits and she was not crossexamined on this aspect.
It has been proved by the plaintiff that the defendants are in unautho
rized possession of the suit premises, so, the plaintiff is entitled to
claim mesne profits. Further, the amount so claimed by her seems
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 47 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
However, as the defendants were not in unauthorized possession prior
to issuance of Legal Notice dated 17.5.2012 and they were enjoying
the suit premises as permissive users without any fee prior to is
suance of the said Legal Notice. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to
sum of Rs.12,000/ per month w.e.f. May 2010 to May 2012. The
plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits 12,000/ per month from month of
June, 2012 till its handing over of possession by the defendants to the
plaintiff.
QUESTION OF INJUNCTION
The plaintiff has examined herself as well Sh. Khube Ram (PW5),
Constable from Police Station Prashant Nagar, Delhi. The defendants
are claiming the ownership in respect of the property and in this
manner, there is definitely threat to the plaintiff that the defendants
shall not create any third party right or part with the possession of the
suit property to some third party. The plaintiff has lodged the
complaint Exhibit PW1/6 vide DD no.18A dated 29.4.2002 in Police
Station Prashant Nagar, Delhi. The said complaint was duly proved
by the plaintiff. The defendants were not able to shake the
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 48 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
testimonies of the said witnesses on material particulars. Considering
overall facts and circumstances of the present case and on the
discussion made hereinabove, the plaintiff has also able to prove this
issue by cogent and convincing evidence.
From the discussion, as adumbrated hereinabove, the Issue nos.1, 4
to 6 are decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF
From the discussions, as adumbrated hereinabove, I hereby pass the
following :
FINAL ORDER
(a) a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants is passed, thereby directing the defendants to hand
over the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the suit
property i.e. third floor and fourth floor of the property bearing
property bearing no. 6754, Block No. 10, Street No.2, Dev Nagar,
Karol Bagh, Delhi, shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW
1/3;
(b) a decree of recovery of damages/ mesne profits for unlawful and
unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property @
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 49 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh Ors.
Rs.12,000/ per month from 1st June, 2012 till realization of the
suit property by the plaintiff from the defendants. The plaintiff is
directed to pay the Court fee on the said amount till the date of
decision and only then decree would be executable in respect of
this relief.
(c) a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their
legal heirs, relatives, successors, assigns, attorneys, agents,
associates etc. from parting with possession or creating any
third party right of the suit property i.e. third floor and fourth
floor of the property bearing no. 6754, Block No. 10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi, shown in red colour in the site
plan Ex.PW1/3.
Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (ARUN SUKHIJA)
on 30/07/2018 ADJ07 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Suit No. 65/2015 Page 50 of 50