GHASITA SINGH Vs. RAM PRAG KOIREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal trial court has dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by appellant against the respondent.

(2.) APPELLANT had prayed in the plaint that by way of decree of declaration it be held that respondent has no right, title or interest in the property bearing no. D-563, Mahavir Enclave, Part III, New Delhi ­ 110045 (for short hereinafter referred to as "suit property") and it is the plaintiff who is actual owner thereof. It was further prayed that respondent be restrained from dispossessing the appellant and his tenants from the suit property.

(3.) IN the written statement, respondent denied the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that appellant was not the owner of suit property and had no locus standi to file the suit. No cause of action had arisen in favour of plaintiff to file the suit. Suit was filed on the basis of documents on which signatures of Mr. Triveni did not tally. It was denied that appellant had purchased the suit property from Mr. Triveni. It was alleged that Mr. Triveni had purchased the suit property from Mr. Surinder Kumar in the month of December, 1989 with the help of respondent. Mr. Triveni raised construction and started living in the suit property. Respondent's family was a joint family and before shifting to the suit property Mr. Triveni was living with the respondent at Madangir. Respondent was in continuous touch with Mr. Triveni. After the death of Mr. Triveni, respondent became exclusive owner of the suit property. A vigilance enquiry was going on against the appellant with regard to the fraud and cheating committed by him, on the complaint of respondent. It was denied that Mr. Triveni had handed over possession of the suit property to appellant. It was also denied that General Power of Attorney, Will etc. were executed by Mr. Triveni in favour of plaintiff. Respondent alleged that he performed the last rites of his brother. Mr. Triveni had confided in appellant that the documents were kept by him with his friend, that is, appellant for safety purposes. When respondent demanded the documents from the appellant he refused to hand over the same. After the demise of Mr. Triveni suit property was in the possession of respondent. It was under his lock and key. Respondent continued to visit the suit property. On 12 th July, 1996 appellant broke open the lock of the suit property and took forcible possession thereof. He also removed all the households articles of respondent and a police complaint was filed in this regard. Market value of the suit property was about Rs.2.5 lacs and could not have been sold for Rs.60,000.00 (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only). It was denied that possession of the suit property was handed over by Mr. Triveni to the appellant and he in turn allowed Mr. Triveni to stay with him.