GURPREET KAUR AND ORS Vs. HARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 5.2.2013 and the Appellate Court dated 9.10.2013; decreeing the suit for possession filed by the respondent-plaintiff with respect to the suit property B-46, East Krishna Nagar, Delhi -110051 situated at plot admeasuring 156 sq. yards.

(2.) As per the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the trial court, the respondent-plaintiff stated that one Sh. Sarpal Singh husband of appellant no.1/defendant no.1 was requested by the husband of the plaintiff to take care and look after the suit property, and for which purpose the possession of the suit property was with the husband of the defendant no. 1/appellant no. 1. It was further stated in that plaint that when Sh. Narender Singh husband of the respondent-plaintiff, who was the owner, expired, the respondent-plaintiff requested the appellants-defendants to vacate the suit property, but they refused to do so. The subject suit for possession and mesne profits therefore came to be filed.

(3.) Appellants-defendants filed a written statement and stated that they are owners in possession of the suit property for more than 35 years and the suit is barred by limitation. Appellants-defendants also challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court claiming that the value of the suit property was more than Rs. 60 lakhs. Appellants-defendants also pleaded that Sh. Narender Singh, who was the husband of the plaintiff, on 24.4.2000 sold 52 sq. yards of the suit property to Sh. Sarpal Singh, who was the husband of the defendant no.1/appellant no. 1 and therefore respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to possession. It was further pleaded in the written statement that another portion of 54 sq. yards was sold by Sh. Narender Singh-husband of the plaintiff to the brother-in-law of the defendant no. 2, namely, Sh. Gurdeep Singh in the year 2001. The ownership of the suit property of the plaintiff was denied and it was denied that the defendants are liable to vacate the suit property.