KALPANA DEVI Vs. SUDAMA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge - I, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, in RCA No. 160/2013, preferred by the appellant -defendant No. 1, whereby the said first appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2013 - decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 - being Suit No. 697/2009, passed by the learned trial court, seeking the relief of possession and permanent injunction, has been affirmed.

(2.) Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had filed the said suit impleading the appellant herein as defendant No. 1 and Shri Bachan Singh, his father, as defendant No. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 2 -Shri Bachan Singh -his father was the sole and exclusive owner of property No. B -16/2, Gali No. 7, Gamri Extension, Delhi - 110053, measuring 58 sq. yds. situated in khasra No. 212 in the area of village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar, Shahdara, Delhi, and he had sold the said property to the plaintiff by executing a set of documents, such as, agreement to sell, registered General Power of Attorney, registered Will, Affidavit, etc. on 29.08.2005. Defendant No. 1, according to the plaintiff, was running a tea stall near the office of defendant No. 2, and defendant No. 2 had provided a single room to defendant No. 1 on the ground floor of the said property. The plaintiff filed the suit on the premise that, contrary to the assurances given by the defendants that the room in possession of defendant No. 1 would be vacated, defendant No. 1 failed to vacate the same. Defendant No. 1, it was alleged, took over possession of other rooms on the ground floor and started living there. The plaintiff accordingly sought possession of the suit property and also permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from creating any third party interest in the suit property. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their separate written statements. While defendant No. 1 claimed that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had colluded; that the set of documents relied upon by the plaintiff was a result of pressure and coercion; that she had invested Rs. 3 lacs in the construction of the house, and; that defendant No. 1 was the wife of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2, in his written statement, admitted execution of the documents dated 29.08.2005 with respect to the ground floor of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. He also stated that first and second floor of the suit property was also sold out by him to other two sons, namely, Shri Surender Singh and Shri Virender Singh. He stated that he had provided to defendant No. 1 a single room accommodation on humanitarian grounds and looking to her poverty and critical condition, for her residence for a short time. He stated that defendant No. 1 had assured that she shall vacate the room but subsequently refused to do so, and further threatened defendant No. 2 to get him implicated in the false cases. He admitted that the sale consideration of the transaction between him and the plaintiff was Rs. 1.5 lacs. He denied having any relationship with defendant No. 1 as that of husband and wife. He further stated that keeping in view of the dishonest intentions of defendant No. 1, he got published the publication dated 19.02.2006 regarding sale of the suit property to the plaintiff and his other sons. He stated that defendant No. 1 had threatened to implicate defendant No. 2 when he asked her to vacate the room in question.

(3.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues on 20th May, 2008: