PANKAJ BAJAJ Vs. MEENAKSHI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has instituted the present suit; (i) for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no.1 Smt. Meenakshi Sharma and defendant no.3 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from property No.A -20, New Friends Colony, New Delhi; (ii) for declaration that the restoration dated 02.05.2009 by the defendant no.2 Lieutenant Governor, Delhi of allotment of plot of land bearing No.A -20, New Friends Colony, New Delhi in favour of defendant no.1 is illegal and unlawful; and (iii) for declaration that the Lease Deed executed by the defendant no.3 DDA in favour of defendant no.1 with respect to the plot No.A -20, New Friends Colony, New Delhi is illegal, unlawful and inoperative.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff:

(3.) THE senior counsel for the plaintiff faced with the aforesaid situation also argued that even if this Court finds the plaintiff to be not having the ownership, the plaintiff being in possession of the land has a right to injunct the defendants no.1 and 3 from dispossessing him from the said land. No merit is however found in the said contention. The plaintiff has approached this Court setting up a title to the land as owner thereof and not on the basis of possession and the plaintiff cannot succeed on a case not pleaded by him. Moreover, the possession asserted by the plaintiff is under the Sale Deed dated 26.03.2007 and the present suit was filed soon thereafter in the in the year 2009 and the possession of the plaintiff since the institution of the suit is under protection of the interim order of this Court. If the plaintiff is not found to be the owner of the land, the question of protecting the possession of the plaintiff does not arise. The plaintiff has not set up a case of adverse possession. The Supreme Court even otherwise in Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 and in L.N. Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229 has held that a plea of adverse possession is inconsistent to the plea of possession on the basis of lawful title. The plaintiff can thus either succeed on the basis of his lawful title and if fails in the same, cannot protect his possession of the land.