BABU LAL Vs. MAHAVIR SINGH @ MAHVIR PRASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 05.3.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 20.7.2005 whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff Babu Lal seeking a declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the Plaintiff is the owner of the property i.e. DDA Flat No. 109, Sunlight Colony (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') and the Defendant be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff had been dismissed.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff as is evident is that she is in possession of theaforenoted suit property; she is an illiterate lady; she was a lab our contractor atTuglakabad Railway Station. Plaintiff had married Nek Ram; out of the said wedlock seven children had been born. Nek Ram's whereabouts were not known for the last 16years i.e. since 1967. Defendant No. 1 in contact with the Plaintiff about 15 years ago i.e. the year 1968; he being a railway employee influenced the Plaintiff and the parties thereafter got married. At that time Defendant No. 1 did not disclose that he was already a married man; he had been married to one Satyawati and had children from the said marriage. This fact came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff only in the year 1981. Defendant No. 1 had played a fraud upon her with an ulterior motive to grab her property. Plaintiff had given her cash and ornaments worth 15000/- to the Defendant No. 1. Plaintiff had paid 5000/- to Defendant No. 1 in the year 1971-72 for the purchase of this property and thereafter and 9000/- at the time when possession was given i.e. in the year 1974; she has since then been residing in that property and paying monthly installments of 157.55. Defendantno.1 had played a fraud upon the Plaintiff and purchased the aforenoted plot in the name of Hme Lata i.e. her sister-in-law and later on it was transferred in the name of Kali ash Chand, his brother-in-law; Defendant No. 1 even refused to pay back the sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the Plaintiff as also her ornaments. He has also refused to look after the children which had been born out of their marriage. On 11.7.1983Defendant called the Plaintiff for an amicable settlement; on reaching there she was beaten by the Defendant and his first wife. Under threat and coercion the Defendant No. 1 obtained the thumb impression of the Plaintiff; pursuant to which a complaint was lodged with the police. By way of the present suit Plaintiff had sought decree of declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property; permanent injunction had also been sought restraining the Defendant from interfering in her peaceful possession.

(3.) Defendants had denied this version of the Plaintiff. It was stated that the Plaintiff was a tenant of Defendant No. 1; she had paid 5000/- towards rent as she was a tenant since 06.3.1967 and the sum had been paid as rent @ 300/- per month. Defendant No. 1 was collecting rent on behalf of the Defendant No. 2; Plaintiff was atenant of the Defendant No. 2. Since 1980 she had stopped paying rent. On repeated demands this false and frivolous suit had been filed against the Defendant. It is pointed out that in all records including the ration card of the Plaintiff the name of Nek Ram has been shown as her husband.