AMITA VASHISHT Vs. TARUN VEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sister of the respondent. The impugned order, dtd. 5/8/2022, has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in Suit Civ DJ 699/2021, on an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in the suit, under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The application stands rejected.

(2.) Civ DJ 699/2021, filed by the respondent against the petitioner, sought (i) a decree of possession, evicting the petitioner from the property situated at B-404, Lakeview Apartments, Paschim Vihar, Delhi ("the suit property") and restoration of possession of the suit property to the respondent, (ii) unauthorized occupation charges/mesne profits along with interest and (iii) a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner from creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property.

(3.) A brief pr ((THELAW))cis of the recitals in the plaint may be provided thus. The suit property was allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to K K Vedi, the father of the parties in this petition and the husband of Sudershan Vedi. K K Vedi expired on 2/5/2005. During his lifetime, K K Vedi executed a registered Sale Deed dtd. 22/11/2003, whereby the suit property was sold by him to the respondent Tarun Vedi. The respondent Tarun Vedi, thereby, became the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property. He, however, allowed his mother Sudershan Vedi to continue to reside in the suit property on a gratuitous basis. Sudershan Vedi expired on 24/9/2019. At that time, the respondent Tarun Vedi was living abroad. He returned to India to perform the last rites of his mother Sudershan Vedi and found that the petitioner Amita Vashisht and her husband S.K. Vashisht were obstructing ingress, by the respondent, into the suit property. The respondent also lodged a police complaint in that regard. Claiming that, in view of the registered Sale Deed dtd. 22/11/2003 executed by K K Vedi in favour of the respondent, no person other than the respondent had any right over the suit property, the respondent instituted the aforesaid CS DJ 699/2021 against the petitioner Amita Vashisht, seeking the reliefs already set out in para 2 supra.