MADALSA SOOD Vs. MAUNICKA MAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC" for short) seeking judgment on admissions qua the relief of possession.

(2.) The suit has been filed for possession, damages and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No.A-44, Third Floor, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi-110065 ("suit property" for short). The plaintiff claims to be the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property. The suit property forms part of a larger structure comprising of other floors. The suit has been filed against the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff who is the defendant No.1 and her mother who is the defendant No.2. The son of the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant No.1 Sh. Vikas Sood expired on 29th September, 2020.

(3.) Mr. Rajat Aneja, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the case as set up in the plaint by the plaintiff and as per the documents also placed on record by her, shows that the suit property belongs to her. The complete property at A-44, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi was originally owned by the husband of the plaintiff being Mr. B.B. Sood. A Perpetual Lease Deed dtd. 26th June, 1973 had been executed in his favour. He expired intestate on 13th April, 1999 leaving behind the plaintiff, her son Sh. Vikas Sood (now deceased) and Ms. Babita Malhotra (married daughter). A Relinquishment Deed was executed by Sh. Vikas Sood and Ms. Babita Malhotra in favour of the plaintiff on 15th December, 1999 which was a registered document. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that on the basis of these documents a Conveyance Deed was also executed in the name of the plaintiff on 12th December, 2000. None of these documents have been challenged by the plaintiff"s son and daughter or even by defendant No.1 in any proceedings. The defendants have also not questioned the execution of the documents in this case, though the defence raised is that the defendant No.1 had share in the suit property through her late husband who had a share in the suit property. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the defendant No.1 had no tenable defence and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of possession qua her.