YASH PAL SAINI Vs. PUSHPA SAINI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above appeals are in similar facts, inasmuch as, arise from same judgment and decree passed by the trial court and are being disposed of together. Trial court has passed a decree of possession in favour of plaintiff (respondent no. 1) and against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 (appellants) in respect of portions in their possession as shown in the site plan Ex PW 1/1 besides restraining them from alienating and creating any third party interest or parting with possession of the property bearing House no. 2979/XI, Kuncha Neel Kanth, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as "suit property"). A decree of mesne profits/damages has also been passed; whereby appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 4,000/ - (Rupees Four Thousand Only) each with effect from 1st May, 2006 till the possession of suit property is handed over to respondent no. 1.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for possession mesne profits and permanent injunction against defendant no. 1 (husband) and defendant no. 2 (son). She also impleaded her other two children as defendant nos. 3 and 4 but no relief was claimed against them. During pendency of the appeal, defendant no. 1 passed away and his legal representatives have been brought on record, vide order dated 7th March, 2012. Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that she was 74 years old woman; she was owner of suit property consisting of ground floor, first floor and barsati floor. Suit property was purchased by her mother, namely, Smt. Mangli Devi, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 17th January, 1958. Smt. Mangli Devi died on 27th December, 1967. Her father Master Basma Ram passed away on 4th January, 1968. Upon death of her parents, plaintiff became sole and absolute owner of the suit property, which was duly mutated in her name in the records of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Defendants were living in the suit property with the plaintiff in different portions. Rooms in possession of the plaintiff at the ground floor were shown in blue colour in the site plan; rooms in occupation of defendant no. 1 were shown in orange colour; similarly rooms in possession of defendant no. 2 and his family were shown in green colour; rooms in possession of defendant nos. 3 and 4 were shown in yellow colour. With the passage of time, relations between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2 became estranged. Relations between defendant nos. 1 and 2 on one side and defendant nos. 3 and 4 on the other also became estranged, as a result whereof defendant no. 4 was forced to leave the suit property. While leaving, defendant no. 4 handed over possession of rooms which he was occupying to the plaintiff. However, defendant no. 1 forcibly took possession of the said rooms in the absence of plaintiff. With the passage of time, relations between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2 further deteriorated. Therefore, on 31st January, 2006 plaintiff asked the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the suit property within three months but to no effect. Defendant no. 2 was owner of a DDA flat bearing no. D -15/30, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi, which he had let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to someone else. Since suit property was not vacated by the defendant nos. 1 and 2, hence the suit.

(3.) PLAINTIFF filed replication (s) whereby allegations as contained in the written statement (s) were denied and averments made in the plaint were reiterated.