SHYAM MISHRA Vs. MADHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 4th February, 2013 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge -IV, South District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.470/2012 (UID No.02405C0412702009) filed by the respondent no.1 against the appellant and the respondents no.2 to 4 herein) of declaration, declaring the documents in respect of suit property being plot No.12 -B ad measuring 125 sq.yds. (38x29.6) out of Khasra No.6/1 situated in Village Nangli Sakaravati Delhi abadi, now known as Prem Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi in favour of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff as valid and the documents with respect to the same property in favour of the appellant / defendant as bogus and directing cancellation thereof and of mandatory injunction directing the appellant to demolish the construction existing at the suit property and failing which the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been permitted to demolish the same and of recovery of possession of the said property and of mesne profits from the appellant/defendant.

(2.) THE appeal came up first before this Court on 12 th March, 2013 when the respondent -1/plaintiff being on caveat appeared. Notice of the appeal was issued and subject to the appellant/defendant depositing the decretal amount in this Court, execution of the decree was stayed. In compliance with the said direction a sum of Rs.46,000/ - has been deposited in this Court. The appeal was on 8th July, 2013, admitted and posted for hearing and the earlier interim order was made absolute. The counsel for the appellant/defendant and the counsel for the respondent -1/plaintiff have been heard and the Trial Court record has been perused. Though notice of the appeal was not issued to the respondents no.2 to 4 / defendants but the respondent no.3/defendant was ex parte before the trial Court and the respondent no.2/defendant though had appeared did not file any written statement and the respondent no.4 /defendant though had filed the written statement but has otherwise no claim to the property. Thus to complete the record, it is formally recorded that their service is dispensed with.

(3.) THE appellant/defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement claiming the documents with respect to the property in his favour to be genuine and the documents in favour of the respondent -1/plaintiff to be bogus and claiming to be in lawful possession of the property under the documents in his favour.