HARINDER PAL SINGH CHAWLA Vs. VINEET TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist is the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,1963( in short ,,the Act of 1963) filed by him against his sister, respondent no.2 herein who was impleaded in the suit as defendant no.2 and shall hereinafter be referred to as ,,defendant no.2, and one total stranger to their family, respondent no.1 herein who was impleaded in the suit as defendant no.1 and reference to him in this judgment also shall be made as ,,defendant no.1. As normally happens that outsiders only benefit from the fight between family members particularly over some immovable property, in this case also this stranger has become the beneficiary of the fight between the brother and sister by managing to get a sale deed executed in his favour from the sister in respect of a portion of a property in a prime area of Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi over which brother and sister are litigating since the year 1991 in civil as well as criminal courts. THE legal battle between these three persons centres around a part of the ground floor portion of house no.N-258, Greater Kailash-I, (which had been described in the plaint as ,,two room garage block with front and rear lawns and shall hereinafter be referred to as ,,the suit property as has been referred to by the trial Court also in the impugned judgment).

(2.) THE revisionist-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as ,,the plaintiff) had filed the suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 on 27th June, 1994, inter alia, on the averments that house no. N-258, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi was owned by his deceased, Mrs. Raj Chawla Sahni, and after her death on 05.06.1984 the ground floor of this property came to be owned by defendant no.2 while the first floor came to his under the Will of their deceased sister Smt. Raj Chawla Sahni. THE plaintiff further claimed in the plaint that he had been in possession of the entire house no. N-258 since 1988/89 onwards. THE ground floor portion, which belonged to defendant no.2 and who was permanently settled in U.S.A., was permitted by her to be occupied by the plaintiff and that is how he claimed in para no. 4(d) of the plaint to be in possession of the ground floor which included the suit property also. THE plaintiff pleaded that he was dispossessed illegally from the ground floor dwelling Unit of house no. N- 258 by his sister on 29.05.1991 but she could not succeed in her attempt to evict him from the suit property on that day but subsequently on 24th December, 1993 he had been illegally dispossessed from the suit property also by his sister, defendant no.2 and defendant no.1, who was alleged to be a builder and dealer of illegal and unauthorized constructions in connivance the police and municipal officials and with whom defendant no.2 had already entered into some deal for sale of the ground floor of house no.N-458 belonging to her.

(3.) THE trial Court had framed the following issues for trial and its decision:-