BIMLA DEVI Vs. SH. KANWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 10.2.2011 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 14.7.2008 whereby the two suits filed by the two respective plaintiffs i.e.<APL> Bimla Devi </APL>(Suit No.429/2007) and Karam Vir (Suit No.430/2007) had suffered their fate. The suit of<APL> Bimla Devi </APL>had been dismissed. The suit of Karam Vir had been decreed.

(2.) THE suit No.429/2007 had been filed by the plaintiff Bimla Devi. Her contention was that she is the owner and in possession of one bigha and one biswas comprising of one room and a surrounding boundary wall in Khasra No.1 in the Village Saboli, Shahdara, Delhi. She had purchased this property from Rishal Singh. Rishal Singh is the deceased father of Karam Vir (plaintiff in Suit No.430/2007). It is averred that the defendants in collusion of one another had raised building material near the suit property to raise a construction and to dispossess the plaintiff. Suit for permanent injunction was accordingly filed. Defendants had disputed her claim. It was contended that the plot in question is only 800 sq. yards comprising of only one room and a broken boundary wall. Contention of the defendants (sons of deceased Rishal Singh) is that their father had never sold the plot to Bimla Devi. In 1992 their father Rishal Singh had filed an injunction suit against the father of<APL> Bimla Devi </APL>namely Man Singh wherein he had made a statement that he has no concern with this plot in question; suit was accordingly withdrawn.

(3.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C. ) had been initiated on the complaint of Bimla Devi. Order dated 23.4.1999 had been passed by the SDM which was in favour of Bimla Devi. Revision petition impugning the order of the SDM was dismissed; petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was also dismissed as being not maintainable; it was held that the order under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. is only temporary in nature and is operable till the issue of possession is decided by the parties in separate civil proceedings which were admittedly pending.