TRIVENDER SINGH Vs. MOTIA WANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge by means of this regular second appeal is made to the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.10.2008 passed by the lower appellate court, by which the ld. Appellate Judge, Delhi has set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2005 passed by ld. Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No.182/1999 whereby the suit of respondent/plaintiff for possession was dismissed and has decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits.

(2.) A suit for possession was filed by the respondent herein i.e., plaintiff No.2 and her husband Shri Bal Mukund i.e. plaintiff No.1 before the learned Civil Judge, Delhi against the appellant herein i.e., defendant before the learned Civil Judge wherein Shri Bal Mukund claimed himself to be the owner of property number RZ-5, Hans Park, Sagar Pur West, New Delhi measuring 107 sq.yds and property no.RZ-9K, Shankar Park, Sagar Pur (West), New Delhi. He had alleged having raised super structure on both the above plots. Shri Bal Mukund i.e., plaintiff no.1 claimed to have agreed to sell property no.RZ-9K, Shankar Park to his wife i.e., plaintiff no.2. Therefore, she was joined as a party by way of abundant caution although no right title or interest was created in her favour. In the month of December, 1987, plaintiffs had gone to Punjab and asked the appellant/defendant to look after the suit properties. On their return, they found appellant/defendant to be in illegal occupancy of property No.RZ-9K, Shankar Park, Sagar Pur (West), New Delhi and one room and kitchen in property No.RZ-5, Hans Park, Sagar Pur (West), New Delhi. On objection being raised, appellant promised to vacate the same but he did not vacate. He instead filed a suit for permanent injunction against them claiming himself to be their adopted son and having contributed in raising the construction of the suit properties and had sought a relief that he should not be dispossessed from the suit properties. The said suit was subsequently withdrawn by him on 15th March, 1999. Since the appellant/defendant did not vacate, they had to file a suit against him for recovery of possession of suit properties and for mesne profits. They had alleged that appellant/defendant had no right in the suit properties.

(3.) Respondent/Plaintiffs had alleged that the appellant had no concern with the suit properties hence the decree for possession in respect of the suit properties be passed in their favour.