MINU SHARMA Vs. NEELAM VARSHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 27.5.2013 by which the first appellate court dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the decree passed by the trial court dated 15.10.2012. Trial court by its judgment dated 15.10.2012 decreed the suit by allowing the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In terms of the decree passed in the suit, the appellant-defendant has been directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property being DDA MIG Flat No. 126, Second Floor, Block B, Pocket-10, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi, to the respondent-plaintiff.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed the subject suit for possession against the appellant/defendant with respect to the suit property stating that the respondent-plaintiff had purchased the suit property on 26.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from her mother Smt. Kamal Sharma. Property was purchased by means of the agreement to sell, power of attorney, Will, affidavit etc and which were duly registered in the office of the sub-Registrar on 27.12.2008. Appellant-defendant was a licencee in the suit property and since the appellant-defendant failed to vacate the suit property the subject suit for possession came to be filed.

(3.) Appellant-defendant filed her written statement and prayed for dismissal of the suit on various grounds, but the principal ground which was taken was that the suit property was not owned by the mother Smt. Kamal Sharma but the same was an ancestral property because it was purchased out of the sale of the ancestral property which came to the father-in-law late Ram Prakash Sharma husband of Smt. Kamal Sharma. The ancestral property which was sold was stated to be C-1-A/33-A, Pankha Road, Janak Puri, Delhi-58. It was pleaded by the appellant-defendant that though the suit property was in the name of the mother of the plaintiff i.e the mother-in-law of the appellant-defendant, actually the property being an ancestral property, the husband of the appellant-defendant also had a share and consequently, the appellant/defendant could not be dispossessed from the suit property. It was also the case of the appellant/defendant that respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property by playing a fraud on her mother Smt. Kamal Sharma.