MINA GUPTA Vs. SANJAY MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plot No.17 measuring 350 sq.yards along with a structure on it at Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi is at the root of controversy. The property admittedly belonged to one G.N.Gupta on whose death it devolved on his legal heir Ms.Mina Gupta, a 50 year old unmarried lady in whose name it was mutated by mutation letter dated 27.1.97 and who filed this Appeal sometime in 2000. Her story, as gathered from the record is that she was living in the front portion of the structure and Respondents who are property dealers in the locality had occupied the rear portion. They later fraudulently opened a bank account in her name and deposited some money in it and fabricated documents to claim that they had purchased the suit property for Rs. 12 lakhs. She lodged FIR No.146/97 against them in which all such documents were seized.

(2.) Respondents version, as is contained in their Suit on the other hand is that they had entered into an agreement for purchase of the entire built-up property for a consideration of Rs.12 lacs with Mina Gupta who had executed an agreement to sell, a registered General Power of Attorney, a registered a Conveyance Deed dated 29.1.97 and had received consideration amount of Rs., 12 lakhs through cheques drawn on two different banks which were encashed by her. She had also handed over the possession of the Suit property to them on 29.1.97, but was allowed to retain a portion of the property consisting of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and a bath in her possession for two months which she later failed to vacate leading to filing of the suit No.189/97 for recovery of possession and mesne profits by them.

(3.) This suit was decreed by ex-parte judgment and decree dated 25.9.1997. The Defendant Mina Gupta first filed an application to set it aside on 12.1.99. Her application was but dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 27.1.99 upon some alleged compromise between the parties and she was eventually evicted pursuant thereto on 3.4.99. This order incidentally makes an interesting reading. It neither records the party's presence or their counsel, nor provides any clue about the alleged compromise said to have been reached by them to justify the withdrawal of application for setting aside the ex-parte decree.