NAND LAL GUPTA Vs. AKHILESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is filed impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 31.3.2012 by which the first appellate court has accepted the appeal which was filed by the defendant in the suit, respondent herein. The first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 3.1.2011 by which the suit for possession with respect to H.No.RC-315 (Old No. RC-53/2), Rajasthan Colony (Faridpuri), Near West Patel Nagar, New Delhi shown in red in the site plan Ex.PW1/6 was decreed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Trial court had also granted damages to the appellant-plaintiff at Rs.700/- per month till possession is delivered.

(2.) Appellant-plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property by means of the documents being Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 being the agreement to sell, power of attorney etc, all dated 14.6.1996, and which were executed by one Sh. Prahlad son of Bhoora Ram in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. In these documents, by which appellant-plaintiff purchased rights in the suit property, the defendant/respondent had signed as a witness. Respondent/defendant also executed a document Ex.PW1/5 dated 25.10.1997 by which the respondent-defendant in his own handwriting stated that till he pays the complete amount to the appellant-plaintiff, with respect to the suit property, he would have no rights in the suit property. Appellant-plaintiff claimed that since the respondent/defendant, was kept as a caretaker in the suit property, but he failed to vacate when asked to, therefore, the subject suit for possession and mesne profits was filed.

(3.) The case of the respondent/defendant before the trial court was that the appellant-plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and respondent/defendant had signed the document Ex.PW1/5 dated 25.10.1997 under the influence of liquor, and that consequently, the document Ex.PW1/5 dated 25.10.1997 is of no effect. It was also pleaded by the respondent-defendant that signatures were obtained by the appellant-plaintiff from the respondent/defendant on blank papers when he was under the influence of liquor and consequently the document Ex.PW1/5 cannot be looked into. Ownership of the appellant-plaintiff with respect to the suit property was questioned and it was stated that actually one M/s Ramjas Foundation is the owner of the suit property and which had given the suit property on lease/licence to the respondent/defendant. Documents executed in favour of the respondent/defendant by Ramjas Foundation are proved as Ex.DW2/A and DW1/A to DW1/C, and which are of the year 1999 ie after 1997 when documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5, when on 25.10.1997 Ex.PW1/5 was executed.