DAVINDER KUMAR Vs. RAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 06.02.2010 and the first appellate court dated 20.10.2010; by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for possession and damages has been decreed against the appellant/defendant with respect to the property bearing no. A- 179, Harijan Basti, Kondli, Delhi-110096 shown in red in the site plan, Exhibit PW1/D. Respondent/plaintiff has also been granted user and occupation charges with effect from 01.11.1999.

(2.) The case of the respondent/plaintiff, and who is alleged by the appellant/defendant to be his adoptive mother, was that the suit property was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff by means of the documentation of the year 1987. These documents have during the course of trial been approved and exhibited by the respondent/plaintiff as Ex.PW1/A to Ex. PW1/C. The respondent/plaintiff also stated that the appellant/defendant was let out the suit property at Rs.800/- per month as a tenant and on account of nonpayment of rent a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 was filed but this petition was subsequently withdrawn as the suit property was not covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that the appellant/defendant falsely claimed that he was adopted by the respondent/plaintiff and her husband Nathu Singh Bodh but there was no adoption. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff prayed for decree of possession/damages with respect to the suit property.

(3.) The appellant/defendant had contended in his written statement that he was the adopted son of the respondent/plaintiff and her husband Shri Nathu Singh Bodh. It was also claimed in the courts below by the appellant/defendant, though it was not argued before me, that the suit property was purchased in the name of the respondent/plaintiff from the funds received on sale of a property in the name of the husband of the respondent/plaintiff and therefore the appellant/defendant was a co-owner with respondent-plaintiff. Essentially, the suit was prayed for being dismissed because respondent/plaintiff was not to be the sole owner of the suit property as also the appellant/defendant is the co-owner with the respondent/plaintiff as he is the adopted son of the respondent/plaintiff and her husband Sh.Nathu Singh Bodh.