KEWAL KISHAN KHANNA Vs. CHAMELI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the suit have prayed for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents and servants etc. restraining them from causing any interference with the plaintiffs, possession of the half portion of the property No. 2626, Ward No. 16, Khasra No. 245, M Block, Naiwala, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 111 sq. yards of the share of Bhola Ram Jain (for short the Suit Property) and for mandatory injunction directing Defendant No. 1 to remove her goods from the suit premises and for damages.

(2.) It is alleged that the plaintiffs purchased the suit property from 1st defendant vide three separate sale deeds dated 3rd September, 1997; that apart from conveying the title held by the 1st defendant she had also handed over the possession of the suit property, the proprietary possession of one shop on the ground floor, which was under the tenancy of Sh. Ram Lal Ashok Kumar; it is alleged that originally the entire property 2626/XVI/M measuring 222 sq. yards, Bank Street, New Delhi was owned in equal shares by S/S. Neki Ram Jain and Bhola Ram Jain sons of Late Shri Ramji Lal; Bhola Ram Jain who was the owner of the half portion of this suit property died on 3rd October, 1973; his son Sh. Srini was Jain also expired leaving behind his wife Smt. Chameli Devi ( defendant No. 1) two daughters Pinki Jain ( defendant No. 2) and Sunita Aggarwal ( defendant No. 3 ) Sunita Aggarwal- defendant No. 3 relinquished her share in the suit property. After selling her rights in the suit property in favour of her mother vide registered relinquishment deed dated 16th December, 1975. Thus defendant No. 1 Chameli Devi held and owned 19/42, undivided share in the lease hold rights in the suit property, she requested that she may be permitted to keep her old household items like old sofa, fridge, 14" B/W TV, Trunks (for short household articles) in one room on the first floor in the suit premises which was sold to the plaintiff. It is alleged that she had promised that she would lift the said articles within a month or so and defendant No. 1 was thus given permissive storage space by the plaintiffs on humanitarian grounds as she pleaded that it was not possible for her to lift away and store the said old household articles in her flat in Rohini. It is further alleged that the plaintiff requested defendant No. 1 number of times to lift and remove away her old household articles but the said defendant failed to do the needful. On the contrary, she threatened the plaintiffs that they would be forcibly dispossessed. On the basis of these averments the plaintiffs sought the above relief. Plaint was registered, summons were issued to the defendant for 14th January, 1999. The defendant No. 1 refused to accept service and that service was effected by affixation; she was held to be duly served and was proceeded against ex parte. Fresh summons were ordered to be issued to defendant No. 2.

(3.) In the meantime, defendant No. 2 Pinki Jain also sold her share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 8th March, 1999. On 4th October 1999, learned counsel for the plaintiff staled that the plaintiffs' claim against defendant No. 2 stands satisfied. As noticed above, defendant No. 3 Sunita Aggarwal had already relinquished her share in the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff was permitted to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavits.