PYARELAL Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the respondent nos. 1 to 3. After service of summons, respondent nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the trial court and filed their separate written statement; however, subsequently they stopped appearing and were proceeded against ex -parte on 29th March, 2012. They did not lead any evidence. Respondent no. 3 did not appear in court despite service and was proceeded against ex -parte.

(2.) VIDE ex -parte judgment and decree dated 3rd December, 2012 trial court has dismissed the suit. Trial court has held that appellant had failed to prove his ownership rights in the suit property, that is, House No. 50 -C consisting of one room, one kitchen and one bathroom being part of khasra no. 716 situated at Hari Nagar Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi more particularly shown in red colour in site plan Ex. PW1/2, on the basis of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt etc. all dated 2nd February, 1989 executed by erstwhile owner, that is, respondent no.1.

(3.) APPELLANT alleged in the plaint that he had purchased the suit property from respondent no.1 vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt all dated 2nd February, 1989, thus, was owner thereof. At the time of execution of aforesaid documents respondent no.1 had handed over the possession of suit property to appellant. After purchasing the suit property, appellant raised construction thereon and started living therein. Mother of respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Rekha had also purchased a plot adjoining to the suit property. Appellant and Ms. Rekha were having cordial relations, thus, no partition wall was made between both the properties. In the year 2005 appellant met with an accident and started living at his native village in Himachal Pradesh, however, he used to visit Delhi often. He requested Ms. Rekha to take care of the suit property, in his absence. Ms. Rekha died in the year 2011 and thereafter, respondent no.2 became owner of the adjoining property. On 3rd September, 2011 appellant visited Delhi and found that someone had put his lock after removing the lock of appellant. On enquiries appellant came to know that respondent no. 3 had put his lock on the instructions of respondent no.2. Despite requests of appellant, respondent no. 3 did not remove his lock. Original documents were kept in the suit property by the appellant. The same were also not given to him. Appellant prayed that he be declared lawful owner of the suit property; respondents be directed to hand over the possession of suit property and they be also restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property.