KRISHAN DEV SHARMA Vs. SOM DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4 June, 1982 of the Additional District Judge, (Mr. B.B. Gupta), Delhi, wher by the suit of the plaintiff for possession was decree against the 425 defendants with costs. It was also decreed against defendant No. 1 for mesne profits @ Rs. 200.00 per month from 5 July 1977, i.e., the date of filing of the suit till delivery of possession. For convenience we will refer to the appellants as defendants and the respondents as plaintiff. The property in question is House No. A/ E-7, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, built on a plot held on prepetual leasehold basis by the plaintiff from the Delhi Development Authority (for short 'D.D.A/), an authority constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The. claim of the plaintiff in suit in brief was that he was owner of this property and the defendants were in unauthorised occupation of the same and the plaintiff also claimed pendente lite and future mesne profits. The defendants numbering eight were the mother, brothers and sisters of the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff purchased the perpetual leasehold rights of the plot in public auctionfromD.D.A.on l0 November,1963 at apremium of Rs.9,100.00 ,the plot measuring 200 sq. yds. At the time of the bid the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 2,275 .00 being l/4th of the bidamount at the fall of the hammer.There is no dispute that this amount was paid by the plaintiff from his own sources. The plaintiff said that the balance amount he deposited on 12 March, 1964 when D.D.A'. executed perpetual lease deed in his favour on 22 January, 1965 which was registered before the Sub Registrar, Delhi. The plaintiff then got possession of the plot and thereafter got plans sanctioned on 23 April, 1965 for building a residential house. He said he built a single storey residential house. He took a loan of Rs. 10,000.00 from the Delhi Administration under Low Income Group Housing Scheme and mortgaged the plot in favour of the Delhi Administration and the President of India and also executed a surety bond for the refund of the loan amount. Construction of the house was completed in 1967. In department of the government and local bodies like Municipal Corporation of Delhi,D.D.A.,it is the plaintff who had been shown as an owner of the house. Plaintiff says he has been paying lease money annually at the rate of Rs. 227.50 to the D.D.A. in respect of the plot, and on the date of the filing of the suit he had returned a sum of Rs. 7,762.32 to the delhi Administration in liquidation of the loan amount. Plaintiff also said he had got the house insured against risk of fire and earthquake, etc. since 1967. He said he had allowed his brothers to live in the house as licensees and earlier they were messing together but after few months they had also started their kitchen separately. Then he refers particularly to first defendant Krishan Dev Sharma and his wife Chanderkanta Sharma whom he blamed to have contacted a second bigamous marriage witht the first defendant. He then said that defendants 2 to 7 were abetting defendants I and 8 and they all were advancing their claim in the house saying that it was Joint Hindu Family property and each one of them had right, title and interest in the same. Plaintiff said he was exclusive owner of the property and he called upon the defendants to vacate, and on their refusal, he filed the present suit and also claimed damages for use and occupation.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit. Written statement was filed by defendants 1to 3 and 5 to 8. They said it was a Joint Hindu Family property and it was owned by H.U.F. (Hindu Undivided Family)of late Shri Kundan Lal. Plaintiffand defendants 1 to 6 are the children of Kundan Lal, and defendant No. 7 is his widow, and defendant No. 8 is wife of the first defendant. Defendants also said that plaintiff was not in a position to buy the plot and the house and it was purchased 426 on behalf of the H.U.F. and that all contributed various amount in the purchase of the leasehold rights of the plot and construction of the house. The plaintiff in his replication denied all these allegations.