CHAMPA JOSHI Vs. MAAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 18.11.2005 by which the trial Court allowed the application of the defendant No.3/respondent No.3 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit as being without cause of action.

(2.) Before coming to the facts of the present case, I must observe that it is elementary that matters pertaining to merits of the disputes i.e. whether a fact as alleged by the appellant/plaintiff is or is not correct or whether a fact as alleged by the respondents/defendants is or is not correct cannot be decided at the stage of pleadings, and surely such disputed questions of fact can only be decided at the stage of final arguments after both the parties have led their evidence. This is because what the plaintiff states in his plaint, as per the plaintiff is right, and what the defendant states in his written statement is, as per the defendant correct, however, who is right can only be decided after the evidence is led by the respective parties on the facts as stated in their pleadings.

(3.) The subject suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was a suit for declaration, possession, mesne profits, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. In the suit, the appellant/plaintiff claimed rights in the suit property bearing No.37B, forming part of khasra No.437, Jeevan Nagar/Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi-14. Rights are claimed by the appellant/plaintiff inasmuch as he claims to have entered into an agreement to sell etc with the owner/defendant No.1-Sh. Maan Singh on 4.1.1991 and paid valuable consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- out of the total price of Rs.2,50,000/-. In the plaint, it is alleged that the appellant/plaintiff was put into possession by the defendant No.1 pursuant to the documentation dated 4.1.1991. The appellant/plaintiff thereafter alleges dispossession by the defendant No.1 in terms of the averments made in para 7 of the plaint. The plaint which was originally filed was thereafter amended to include the facts with regard to the selling of the rights in the suit property (by means of the similar documentation executed in favour of the appellant by the defendant No.1) by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 vide documentation dated 30.12.1996. This date of 30.12.1996 is mentioned because the defendant No.1 in the suit had filed an affidavit that he had sold rights in the suit property to the defendant No.2 by means of the documentation dated 30.12.1996. There are other averments in the plaint of the defendant No.2 by means of similar documentation dated 2.4.1997 transferring rights in the suit property to the defendant No.3. The plaint seeks restoration of possession, the related claim of mesne profits, the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants to execute sale documents in favour of the plaintiff and also for restraining the defendants from further dealing with the suit property.