KULDEEP BALHARA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition under Section 115 CPC, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28th August, 2012 passed by the learned Trial Court in a suit for restoration of possession filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in respect of the property bearing flat No. B - 947, 1st Floor, Sector -1, Avantika, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ''suit property '').

(2.) BRIEF facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner had filed a suit for restoration of possession against the respondents stating that the petitioner had purchased the suit property from the one Hamera w/o Zaheer Ahmad on 24th October, 2007 for a consideration of Rs.2,25,000/ - vide registered documents of sale/purchase, however, the actual physical possession of the suit property was handed over to the petitioner by Hamera on 18th September, 2007 as the sale consideration was being paid by the petitioner in parts since July, 2007. It was stated that the estranged husband of Hamera had snatched the original title deeds of the suit property regarding which a case filed by her against her husband and others is pending. The petitioner purchased the suit property on production of the certified copies regarding the title of the suit property in favour of Hamera.

(3.) ON the other hand, the respondent No.1 contended that he had purchased the suit property from respondent No.2 by virtue of documents being GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Will all dated 11th September, 2008 and that the possession was also handed over. Thereafter the respondent No.1 was receiving threats from the petitioner to illegally dispossess him from the suit property and consequently the respondent no.1 filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner. It was further stated that the respondent No.1 in order to buy mental peace and remain away from the harassment cause by the petitioner had approached respondent No.2 who had purchased back the suit property from respondent No.1 on 5th March, 2009 and revoked the documents executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1.