RAJ KUMARI GARG Vs. S M EZAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to decide two abovementioned applications. The brief summary of the facts is that the plaintiff herein has filed the present suit for possession and perpetual injunction for the commercial property bearing No.23, Ground Floor, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi-110024, admeasuring about 92.78 sq yards (hereinafter referred to as suit property). The plaintiff claims to be the exclusive owner of the suit property having perpetual leasehold rights granted to her by Land & Development Office, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, vide perpetual lease deed dated 19.12.1974, which now consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor.

(2.) The plaintiff states that she had received the suit property through funds received under a duly signed voluntary "Family Settlement" dated 11.07.1974 executed between Late Sh. Lala Ram, Shyam Behari, Bhagwan Dass, Balkrishan and Smt. Kalawati w/o Sri Badri Prasad. An amount of Rs. 32,880/- was given to the plaintiff to purchase the suit property with a specific condition that the plaintiff will have no right to sell the property so purchased from the money provided by them. Accordingly, a lifetime limited right to use/enjoy and the income generated there from. The plaintiff purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-.

(3.) Further, the plaintiff states that she was in actual possession of the suit property until one Mr. Dinesh Gupta, s/o Late R.K. Gupta and his mother Smt Nirmala Gupta, fraudulently obtained plaintiff's signature and thumb impression on some documents such as Agreement to Sell etc. which were written in English. According to the plaintiff, she does not know how to read and write in English, therefore, she could not read the documents in English and under misrepresentation of facts and law she signed those documents. They gave her a sum of Rs.25 lac and took physical possession of the suit property by execution of an Agreement to Sell dated 07.07.1998 between them. But, as the family of the plaintiff was against the sale of the suit property to the said Dinesh Gupta and his mother, therefore, the plaintiff immediately informed them in July, 1998 only that she did not want to sell the suit property and that all the documents including agreement to sell dated 07.07.1998 be treated as cancelled. She also offered to return their Rs.25 lac.