ORUJ AHMED Vs. RASHIDUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant nos.2 and 3 seek rejection of the plaint in this suit for declaration of title, possession etc. filed against them by the plaintiff on the allegations that they have dispossessed him illegally from the suit property(plot no.33 msg. 400 sq.yds. in khasra no.378/172, Johri Farm, Village Okhla, New Delhi) he had legally acquired from defendant no.1.

(2.) The applicants-defendants have sought rejection of the plaint, before even filing any written statement, on the ground that in the plaint itself the plaintiff has averred that the suit property, which had been agreed to be sold to him in April, 2009 by defendant no.1 acting as an attorney of his grandfather who allegedly was the recorded owner, had been acquired way back in the year 1984 vide award dated 24th February, 1984 and, therefore, no transaction of sale could have been entered into by defendant no.1 who even otherwise had no right in the suit property and is in fact a head of a gang of land grabbers of Merrut having political patronage also and was terrorising innocent persons to grab their properties in the area where the suit property is situated.

(3.) This application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. has been opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaint discloses genuine cause of action for filing of the present suit for possession etc. against the applicants-defendants and the suit for possession, declaration of title in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and permanent injunction on the ground that the plaintiff has been illegally dispossessed from the suit property by defendant nos. 2 to 4, out of whom defendant no.2 is an Association of the residents of the area and defendant nos. 3 and 4 claim themselves to be the office bearers, and so they are liable to return back the possession and the suit for the reliefs claimed is not barred also under any law.