LALITA KHURANA Vs. HARISH KUMAR KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 8.5.2014 though this Court was not inclined to grant an adjournment, yet on the request of the counsel for the appellant this case was listed for today, making it clear at the same time that no further adjournment shall be granted. Today, in my opinion, as a strategy on behalf of the appellant, one Mr. Sanjay Kumar, who claims to be a relative of the appellant appears and says that the appellant wants to change her counsel, and therefore, an adjournment is sought. There is however no application by the counsel for the appellant to seek discharge and nor is the counsel personally present for seeking discharge. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand very vehemently opposes the adjournment, and accordingly, I decline the request for adjournment. I have heard the counsel for the respondents, perused the record and am proceeding to decide these appeals. It is also noted here that FAO No. 280/2008 & RFA No. 267/2008 are connected appeals. FAO No. 280/2008 is filed against the impugned judgment dated 10.3.2008 dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by the appellant for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.7.2007. RFA No. 267/2008 is filed against the ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.7.2007 by which the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed under Order 8 (10) CPC.

(2.) LET us first turn to the facts of the case. Disputes pertain to the property bearing no. 31/25, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and which property was owned by the father of the respondents/plaintiffs, one Sh. Khem Chand Khurana. In favour of Sh. Khem Chand Khurana, the government had executed a lease deed of the suit property, and consequently, there is no doubt as held by the trial court that the deceased Sh. Khem Chand Khurana was the owner of the suit property and after his death the respondents/plaintiffs became owners of the suit property. The subject suit for possession was filed against the appellant/defendant, and who is the widow of late Sh. Ashok Kumar Khurana who was the son of late Sh. Khem Chand Khurana. Possession was sought from the appellant/defendant of one room, open space, kitchen, latrine and bath room as shown in red in the site plan filed with the plaint. Respondents/plaintiffs pleaded that Sh. Ashok Kumar Khurana committed suicide in the year 1994 on account of matrimonial disputes. Sh. Ashok Kumar Khurana being a son was allowed by late Sh. Khem Chand Khurana to occupy the portion which is presently in possession of the appellant/defendant. Since the appellant/defendant failed to vacate the suit property she was served with the legal notice dated 14.10.1997 to vacate the suit property. The appellant in response alleged that the suit property was ancestral property and claimed 1/5th share in the same. Trial court also notes that there were disputes between the appellant and late Sh. Khem Chand Khurana during the latter's life time.

(3.) I note that if the appellant has sold rights in the disputed property by means of agreement to sell dated 1.5.2007, then it is not understood that how is she still continuing to litigate and the so called purchaser Smt. Aditi Madan has not contested the case by getting herself substituted for the appellant. In my opinion, the object of the appellant in this regard is basically to complicate the matter and delay and defeat the rights of the respondents/plaintiffs with respect to entitlement of possession of the portions which are with the appellant in the suit property bearing no. 31/25, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.