AJAY GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforementioned Test. Case No.33/1999 and two suits bearing Nos.CS(OS) 694/2005 and CS(OS) 695/2005 are being decided by this common judgment in view of the commonality of facts and issues involved in all the three legal proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioners/plaintiffs are brothers who claim to be absolute owners and in peaceful possession of property bearing No.C-328, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi since July, 1996. It is the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the aforesaid property was the self-acquired property of their maternal grandfather�Shri Ram Nath Gupta, before the title of the same was passed over to the plaintiffs on 1st July, 1996, when Shri Ram Nath Gupta proposed to sell the aforesaid property on account of his strained financial circumstances and the plaintiffs along with their father jointly decided to purchase the property for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Only). Allegedly, on 1st July, 1996, Shri Ram Nath Gupta executed various documents being Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Possession Letter, Receipt for the consideration amount, an affidavit in favour of the plaintiffs and a Will which is the subject matter of the Testamentary Case, being Test. Case No.33/1999. Allegedly also, all the aforesaid documents were executed on the same day, that is, on 01.07.1996 and were either registered or notarized as per the requirement of law on the said date.

(3.) IT may be mentioned at this juncture that an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint of CS(OS) 694/2005 on the ground that after receiving notice of the said suit on 27.05.1999, the defendants had taken forcible possession of another room on the first floor on 28.05.1999. Accordingly, the relief in the said suit also stood amended to the extent of seeking possession of two rooms and mesne profits @ Rs. 5,000/- per month for each of the two rooms in question. The said amendment was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 29.03.2001. The amended plaint dated 05.06.1999 along with the site plan were taken on record by the Court on 19.04.2001.