KAMLESH Vs. SUNITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner in terms of Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, who was the defendant before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred as the "petitioner/defendant"), assailing the Impugned Judgment dtd. 29/8/2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-04, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi[Trial Court] in suit bearing CS No. 936/2018, whereby suit of the respondent/plaintiff instituted on 8/6/2018 under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,[Act] was decreed.

(2.) The case of the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court was that the property bearing No. TA-33A/2, Tugalkabad Extension, New Delhi[Suit property] was originally owned by one Mr. Rampal, who died intestate and the right, title and interests in the same were inherited by his widow, two sons and three daughters. It was claimed that there was effected an oral family settlement amongst the legal heirs and consequent thereto, while the first floor of the suit property which has been in occupation of the petitioner/defendant, who is the wife of Mr. Hukum Singh S/o late Sh. Rampal, was left for intact, the rest of the property comprising of ground, second and third floor constructed on an area of 28 Sq. Yards was sold to her by the other legal heirs of deceased Rampal vide Sale documents viz., registered GPA, possession letter, receipt and Will dtd. 20/7/2011 registered on 23/7/2011 for a total consideration of Rs.10,75,000.00.

(3.) It was stated that the petitioner/defendant joined with her husband and filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration against other legal heirs of the deceased Mr. Rampal besides her so as to get the sale documents executed by them in her favour as "null & void", which was hotly contested and was eventually dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide judgment dtd. 10/1/2018. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner/defendant, who was having some matrimonial disputes with her husband started creating hurdles in her peaceful occupation of the suit property on the ground floor, second floor and third floor and it was alleged that she trespassed into her portions of the property by breaking open the locks on 2/6/2018 and took over illegal possession and control of the same. Therefore, she filed a suit under Sec. 6 of the Act seeking to reclaim the possession of the suit property.