LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-427

KHAZANO DEVI Vs. BRAHM PAL

Decided On February 03, 2012
KHAZANO DEVI Appellant
V/S
BRAHM PAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1993 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for possession with respect to the suit property being 500 sq. yds. of land situated in Khasra No. 132 Min., 144, 1109 Min. and 1110 Min. within the Abadi of village Rithala, Delhi. Besides praying for possession, the appellant/plaintiff had also prayed for cancellation of the documents dated 12.8.1981 executed by the appellant/plaintiff in favour of the respondent/defendant with respect to the suit plot of 500 sq. yds. Injunction and mesne profits were also claimed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit stating that there was an agreement between the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant for exchanging the suit plot of 500 sq. yds. with the plot of 400 sq. yds. belonging to the father of the respondent/defendant. It was pleaded that this arrangement of exchange of the plot was made so as to park a truck of the appellant/plaintiff and for which parking the plot of the respondent/defendant was more suitable.

(3.) THE respondent/defendant contested the suit and stated that the appellant/plaintiff has falsely pleaded a case of exchange, and that the transaction in fact, entered into between the parties, was for a sale of the plot of 500 sq. yds. by the appellant/plaintiff in favour of the respondent/defendant, and under which transaction, appellant/plaintiff after receiving a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, executed the necessary documents in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi and one document being the receipt was registered in the Sub-Registrar's office. It was also pleaded that the fact that the suit was filed after a period of about four years after the alleged fraud was said to have been played, shows the lack of substance in the suit. It was also pleaded that there was no agreement whereby the father of the respondent/defendant was to transfer the plot of 400 sq. yds. to the appellant/plaintiff as was alleged.