SUNHARI SINGH & ANR. Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM 7605/2015 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM(M) 361/2015 & CM 7606. 2015 (stay) Aggrieved by the order dated 15th Jan., 2015 whereby an application filed by Jagdish respondent/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil P.C. was allowed, the petitioners who are the defendants in CS No. 148/13 file the present petition.

(2.) In the plaint Jagdish stated that he was allotted plot Nos. 85 & 114 Masoodpur, New Delhi (in short the suit plots) from DDA. He permitted his brothers Sunhari Singh and Daya Ram to use the said plots for running their dairy business, however subsequently Jagdish noticed construction made over part of the plots. Thus, he filed the suit seeking possession of the suit plots from the defendants and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest or carrying out construction over the suit property.

(3.) In the written statement filed it was, inter alia, pleaded that in 1965 the plaintiff and defendants with their father had migrated from District Alwar, Rajasthan and started residing in Delhi. They were doing dairy farming and the owner of the plot expressed the desire to sell the same. Thus father of the plaintiff and defendants started paying him money from the joint family funds. In 1976 DDA announced a scheme for allotment of dairy plots in Delhi in order to shift the dairies from the residential area and thus plot No. 85 was allotted by DDA in the name of Jagdish, however the license fee was deposited from the joint family funds. With the passage of time further construction up to three stories was made out of the joint family funds. In 1983 DDA further announced the allotment of additional plots when plot No. 114 was allotted. As per the oral family settlement the father of the parties decided that Jagdish will possess the Garhi plot which is three storied building, Sunhari Singh and Daya Ram were given exclusive possession of plot Nos. 85 and 114 at Masoodpur Village, New Delhi. It was thus pleaded that the defendants were absolute owner of the properties and defendant No. 2 had already built 5 shops and out of the same two shops were in possession of defendant No. 2 and three had been rented out. Further defendants constructed 6 rooms on the back side which were on rent besides four rooms with bathroom, kitchen, toilet and one servant quarter which were being used by the defendant No. 2 for his residence.