SARITA KHANNA Vs. DEVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2010 which has endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 28.04.2006 whereby the suit filed by Devinder Singh against six defendants of whom the contesting defendant was Sarita Khanna (defendant No. 1) seeking declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the decree dated 03.05.2000 passed in Suit No. 220/1998 was obtained by fraud and collusion were decreed. Suit No. 2201998 was a suit filed by Sarita Khanna (defendant No. 1) against Rameshwari Devi widow of Chellu Ram and other legal heirs including her sons who had been arrayed in the present suit as defendants No. 3 to 6.

(2.) THE plaintiff is stated to be the owner and in possession of land measuring 209 square yards bearing No. 97 -98 being a part of Khasra No. 13, Qilla No. 26/1, Village Khureji Khas, New Delhi. He had purchased this property from Ram Niwas Aggarwal (defendant No. 2) vide sale documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to sell, Will, Affidavit, Possession letter receipt all dated 31.08.2001 (Ex. PW -1/A to Ex. PW -1/F) for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/ -. Ram Niwas Aggarwal vide similar documents Ex. PW -1/G to Ex. PW -1/K had purchased this suit premises from Desh Raj on 21.10.1999. Desh Raj had in turn purchased this suit land on 15.06.1984 vide documents Ex. PW -1/L to Ex. PW -1/M from Prem Pal Arora. Prem Pal Arora had purchased the suit land from Jai Pal vide documents Ex. PW -1/P to Ex. PW -1/Q on 02.01.1973. Jai Pal had in turn purchased this suit land from the earlier predecessor Ratan Lal Gupta on 07.11.1966 vide documents proved as Ex. PW -1/R to Ex. PW -1/S. Further contention was that Ram Niwas Aggarwal had purchased this suit property from Aflatoon and Harpal on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 26.02.1966 who were the recorded owners in the revenue record. In 1984, Prem Pal Arora had permitted Chellu Ram who was the father of defendants No. 3 to 6 and their mother Rameshwari Devi to look after the suit property. This arrangement continued up to 2001 when the defendants were asked to vacate the suit property. The defendants had assured Ram Niwas Aggarwal (defendant No. 2) that they will vacate this suit property within three months. On 31.08.2001, the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property in terms of Ex. PW -1/A to Ex. PW -1/F which had been executed in his favour by Ram Niwas Aggarwal. The plaintiff also took physical possession of the suit property. The plaintiff was informed by defendants No. 3 to 6 that on an earlier date i.e. 24.08.2001, defendant No. 2 along with the Court Bailiff had gone to take the possession of the suit property but it was resisted. It was then the plaintiff learnt that defendant No. 1 Sarita Khanna had filed a suit bearing No. 220/1998 for recovery of the suit property against defendants No. 3 to 6 wherein on 03.05.2000 Rajesh (defendant No. 3) had made a statement on behalf of himself and his other legal representatives to vacate the suit property whereupon the suit of defendant No. 1 Sarita Khanna i.e. Suit No. 220/1998 had been decreed. It was in pursuance of this decree that Sarita Khanna had sought execution and gone to the suit premises on 24.08.2001 for delivery of the suit property. It is contended that this decree dated 03.05.2000 has been obtained by fraud and the present suit has been filed seeking a declaration to the said effect.

(3.) THE trial Judge had framed the following seven issues: - 1. Whether the defendant has obtained the decree dated 03.05.2000 in suit No. 220/1998 by fraud and collusion and therefore, be declared as null and void? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is without any right and interest in the suit property? OP D1 3. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property in view of decree dated 03.05.2000 in suit No. 220/1998? OPP 4. Whether the suit is without cause of action? OP D1.