Shri Devender Kumar and Another vs Sh. Rajbir Singh Tokas and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The two plaintiffs have sued for relief of permanent injunction restraining the three defendants and their agents from, in any manner, interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit premises bearing No. 352-E/23/1, situated at the Revenue Estate of village Mohammad Pur Munirka commonly known as Munirka Village, New Delhi. The plaint was accompanied with an application for interim relief. Vide ex parte order dated 22nd December, 2006 the parties were ordered to maintain status quo qua possession and title of the aforesaid property. The said order continues till date.

The defendants are related to each other, the defendants 2 and 3 being the father and mother respectively of the defendant No. 1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the said property vide a registered sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs; that the said property admeasures 222 sq yds and forms part of a larger property admeasuring 422 sq yds; that the defendant No. 1 had in turn acquired the entire property admeasuring 422 sq yds from his father, the defendant No. 2, again vide a registered sale deed; that the plaintiffs, since the sale deed in their favour, are in peaceful possession of the property, a portion of which is stated to have been let out with the tenant therein paying the rent to the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs also claim to have obtained electricity connection in the property in their name and the property is stated to be recorded with the house tax department in the name of the defendant No. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that owing to increase in prices of the property, the defendants, inspite of the sale of the property as aforesaid to the plaintiff, started asking for more monies and upon refusal of the plaintiffs to do so threatened to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the property purchased by them. Upon service, the defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement admitting the case of the plaintiffs as to the title of the plaintiffs to the property in toto. The said defendants however denied having threatened the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever.

The defendant No. 3 though is the wife of the defendant No. 2 could not be served by ordinary process and was ordered to be served by publication. She failed to appear inspite of publication and was vide order dated 3rd March, 2008 ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

Finding the defendants 1 and 2 to have in their written statement admitted the title of the plaintiffs to the property, on 2nd September, 2008 it was ordered that no useful purpose will be served by relegating the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 for evidence as to whether the defendants 1 and 2 had threatened the plaintiffs or not. The defendants 1 and 2 were directed to appear before the court to make a statement on the basis whereof the suit insofar as against defendants 1 and 2 could be decreed.

Only the defendant No. 1 appeared on 20th January, 2009 pursuant to the direction aforesaid. It was informed that the defendant No. 2 is very old and paralyzed and unable to come to the court and the counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 was authorized to make statement on behalf of the defendant No. 2. The statement of the defendant No. 1 and the counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 2 was recorded on 20th January, 2009. They have in their statement stated that they admit the plaintiffs'' claim or title to the property aforesaid. They further stated that they have never interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit property and claimed no right, title or interest in the suit property. They also gave an undertaking to this Court not to themselves or through their agents interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs of the property. The aforesaid undertakings of the defendants 1 and 2 were accepted by this Court and the defendants 1 and 2 were ordered to be bound by the said undertakings and upon acceptance of the said undertaking the plaintiffs did not press for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2.

The plaintiffs have led ex parte evidence qua the defendant No. 3 by filing affidavits by way of examination in chief of both the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have proved the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 with respect to the entire property admeasuring 422 sq yds as Exhibit PW1/2 and the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit property admeasuring 222 sq yds as exhibit P2. Site plan of the property has been proved as exhibit P1 and the bill of the electric connection in the name of the plaintiff No. 1 has been proved as exhibit PW1/4.

The evidence of the plaintiffs remains unrebutted. From the sale deed aforesaid, the plaintiffs are found to be owners of the suit property admeasuring 222 sq yds. It is in evidence that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the property. The husband and the son of the defendant No. 3 have already admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and undertaken not to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs have also become entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as claimed against the defendant No. 3 also.

Accordingly a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No. 3 restraining the defendant No. 3 from either herself or through her agents interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs of the premises admeasuring 222 sq yds bearing No. 352-E/23/1, situated at Munirka Village, New Delhi. However, in the facts aforesaid the parties are left to bear their own costs. The decree sheet be drawn up.