PRAMILLA DEVI Vs. BRAHM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT suit has been filed by the plaintiff Pramilla Devi through her attorney Manoj Kumar seeking permanent injunction against the defendant Brahm Singh restraining him/his representatives/his agents in interfering in the construction of the boundary at the periphery of the suit property and from in any manner interfering in the peaceful use and occupation of the suit property.

(2.) THE case as set up by the plaintiff is that she is a widow aged 80 years. She is a permanent resident of Village and Post Nadiawan, District Lakhisarai, Bihar and occasionally visits Delhi. This property measuring 1200 square yards was bought by her in the year 1999 through a registered sale deed dated 26.07.1999 from Beer Singh, Rame, Birbal and Jagmal Singh, all sons of Munshi of village Madanpur Khadar, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. She has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land since that date. The land has also been mutated in the revenue records. This land comprised of 1200 square yards in Khasra No. 731, village Madanpur Khadar. The land has also been mutated in the name of the plaintiff Khatoni of the said land has been filed. The defendant is a resident of village Madanpur Khadar. He is a rogue element of the village and has been involved in various frivolous litigations. Manoj Kumar had been engaged as a caretaker of the plaintiff The suit property was bound by a boundary wall which in due course, due to dilapidated condition, had fallen down. The plaintiff visited the suit property in April, 2009 where she noticed bricks having fallen from the boundary; she asked her caretaker Manoj Kumar to repair the boundary wall. When Manoj Kumar went to the said land for the purpose of re -raising the boundary wall, the defendant and his associates prevented him from doing so. He stated that he had purchased this land and it belongs to him. Oral complaint was made to the police. The plaintiff has learnt that the defendant had filed a case before the District Judge seeking specific performance of the contract relating to the suit property. On 22.07.2002, this relief had been declined. RFA 538/2002 was filed by the defendant. It is yet pending. The defendant has no right in the suit property and in fact no such averment has also been made in RFA 538/2002; he does not have title to the suit property and he was also never in possession of the said property. He is trying to grab the land of the plaintiff

(3.) THE defendant filed his written statement. It was stated that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has never been in possession of the said land and as such, the question of interference in the possession of the plaintiff does not arise. On merits, it was stated that although the sale deed dated 26.07.1999 reflects that the property stands mutated in the name of the plaintiff yet it is denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. It is stated that the defendant belongs to a respectable family. He is not involved in frivolous litigations as has been stated by the plaintiff He has been in continuous possession, and is owner of the suit land since 1999. It is denied that Manoj Kumar was the caretaker of the plaintiff and he had gone to the site to repair the boundary wall of the plaintiff. The defendant had entered into an agreement with the bhumidar Gulshan Kumar Gulati who had purchased this land from Ravinder Singh and others sons of Nathu Singh. Ravinder Singh and others were the bhumidars of 3 bighas 7 biswas in khasra No. 731 in village Madanpur Khadar. The plaintiff has in fact never been in possession of the suit property. Suit is liable to be dismissed.