(1.) THE plaintiff has filed the abovementioned suit for possession, damages/mesne profit against the defendants. The abovementioned application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XV Rule 1 & 2 CPC as the plaintiff felt no evidence is necessary in the present case in view of the facts available on record.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that he had purchased the property No. RZ -F -41/30, B -III, Gali No. - 41, Sadh Nagar -II, Palam Colony, New Delhi -110045, which was constructed on plot No. 31 -A, measuring 70 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 527 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'), from Shri Suraj Tokas, defendant No. 3, husband of defendant No. 1 by way of registered sale deed being document No. 12759, book No. 1 Volume No. 2303 on page No. 81 to 89, which was executed on 19th September, 2005 against valuable consideration. The copy of the sale deed has been placed on record. The terms and conditions of the sale deed indicated that the seller namely Sh. Suraj Tokas/defendant No. 3, delivered the vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff which was taken over by the plaintiff by putting his lock and key itself on 19th September, 2005, in presence of the persons who became the witnesses to the sale deed including Shri Ratan Lal. In view thereof the plaintiff becomes the owner of the suit property and none of the legal heir or successors or family members of the defendant No. 3 have any legal right, title or interest in the suit property, the said condition was also narrated in the sale deed at page No. 8, para No. 2: -
(3.) IT is alleged in the plaint that after the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property and took over the possession of the suit property, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 trespassed in the suit property on or about 20th September, 2005, by breaking and opening the lock put by the plaintiff on the suit property unauthorisedly and illegally took over the possession of the suit property. When the plaintiff visited the suit property on 20th September, 2005, he found that the lock had been broken and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were found in possession. However, when the plaintiff made a request to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the suit property, they started abusing the plaintiff and refused to vacate the suit property. The plaintiff also made a complaint to the Police regarding trespass by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 20th September, 2005. It is the case of the plaintiff that he made efforts to reconcile the dispute by requesting the respectable persons of the locality to intervene in the matter. The meeting was held in the second week of October, 2005, in the said meeting both the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 admitted that their possession in the suit property is illegal but there was no alternative available to them except to take over the possession of the suit property as Shri. Suraj Tokas/defendant No. 3 had sold the suit property to the plaintiff that too without making any alternative arrangement for the family. Therefore, until defendant No. 3 would make any arrangement, they would not vacate the suit property.