SHYAM SUNDER Vs. MEENA TANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the appellants under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 & 151 CPC seeking review of order dated 6.5.2013.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record as well as the submissions made in the application.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the filing of the regular second appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent herein, Meena Taneja had filed a Civil Suit No.35/10/02 for possession, mesne profits/damages and injunction against the defendants/appellants herein in respect of the ground floor of property No.H-1/28, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024. The case which was setup by the plaintiff/respondent herein was that the aforesaid property actually belonged to one Bhagat Ram and it was purchased by mother-in- law of the plaintiff, Vidyawanti, from him by virtue of registered sale deed on 3.7.1967. After getting the property mutated in the name of Vidyawanti, she became owner of the suit property. Vidyawanti is stated to have died on 27.6.2000 leaving behind a registered Will dated 1.5.2000 bequeathing the entire property in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The other legal heirs of Vidyawanti, were her husband (Kishori Lal), sons (Suraj Prakash and Shyam Sunder), daughter-in-law (Radha Taneja) and daughter (Shanti Grover). Kishori Lal (husband) had not disputed the Will and similarly, Suraj Prakash, husband of respondent/plaintiff as well as brother-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff, namely, Shyam Sunder, who is the appellant No.1 in the instant case exhibited the Will dated 1.5.2000, purported to have been executed by Vidyawanti, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. They also exhibited a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Similar was the case with regard to Shanti Grover, daughter of Vidyawanti. As a consequence of this relinquishment deed and non-challenge of the Will, the lessor had perfected the title in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and she became the owner of the property. The plaintiff/respondent, after becoming the owner of the suit property had entered into a collaboration agreement with one builder, Sanjay Sayal, for the purpose of development and reconstruction of the entire property. It has been disputed that basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor were constructed on the property which were shared between the owner, that is, plaintiff/respondent and the builder. The second and the third floor along with terrace rights had fallen to the share of the builder or his nominee. So far as the basement, ground and first floor are concerned, they had fallen to the share of the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent is stated to have perfected the title of the builder, Sanjay Sayal, so far as the second and the third floors are concerned by executing the sale deed in which the present appellant Shyam Sunder was a conforming party. In addition to this, it has been stated that he is a conforming party in the collaboration agreement also. It is also stated that after the reconstruction of the property, Shyam Sunder was living in the ground floor as a licensee along with his wife and father while as the plaintiff/respondent along with her husband Suraj Prakash was living on the first floor. It is stated that the licence of the defendant/appellant, Shyam Sunder, to occupy the ground floor of the suit property was cancelled and he was requested to vacate the premises and since he did not oblige, consequently, the plaintiff/respondent was constrained to file the suit for possession, damages and injunction against the defendants/appellants Shyam Sunder and his wife Radha Taneja. This suit was contested by the defendants/appellants and they filed their written statement. The stand taken by the defendants/appellants was that they were assured to be permitted to live on the ground floor of the suit property despite the fact that they had executed a relinquishment deed and exhibited the Will. The learned trial court, after framing of the issues, permitted the parties to adduce their evidence and decided the suit for possession in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on 2.8.2011; however, no damages were accredited to the plaintiff/respondent.