RAMESH PRAKASH Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH BHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2007 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 07.02.2006 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Sukhbir Singh Bhati seeking permanent and mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendant be restrained from interfering and trespassing upon the portion of the property of the plaintiff (measuring 500 square yards and as depicted in green colour) i.e. property bearing No. C-17/231, Khajuri Colony, Gokalpuri, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ,,suit property) as also with a further direction that the defendant be directed to demolish the unauthorized construction raised upon a portion of this suit property (114 square yards as depicted in red colour) had been decreed in his favour.

(2.) THE plaintiff along with his wife claimed to be the owner and in exclusive and uninterrupted physical possession of the suit property as also the superstructure raised thereupon. THE plaintiff had earlier purchased 200 square yards in the year 1981; this purchase was in the name of his wife. THE property had been purchased from the defendant. THE defendant had executed a receipt and agreement to sell dated 07.05.1981; physical possession of the suit property had been handed over to the plaintiff and his wife. In 1985, the plaintiff purchased the additional adjacent plot of land measuring 300 square yard along with the superstructure from the defendant; total consideration was Rs.1,20,000/-. An agreement to sell, GPA and receipts were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; physical possession of the aforenoted 300 square yards of plot along with its superstructure was handed over to the plaintiff and his wife. THE defendant was a colonizer; he used to demarcate plots; prices in the locality have gone up. THE defendant by illegal designs without any right or interest sought to grab 114 square yards of the aforenoted suit property; he had raised constructions (wall in the northern side) without permission of the plaintiff. Criminal complaint was lodged. Inspite of requests, the defendant had failed to vacate the suit property or demolish the said wall. Present suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led. The agreement to sell dated 07.05.1981 was proved as Ex. PW-1/1; GPA dated 27.12.1984 was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2; the site plan was proved as Ex. PW-1/3; photographs of the site have been proved as Ex. PW-2/2 to Ex. PW-2/5 showing the alleged illegal construction by the defendant on a portion of the suit property. The defendant had examined himself in defence. DW-2 Dharam Singh was also examined. Issue No. 4 is relevant for the controversy in issue. The trial court had returned the following finding in this context; it read as under:-