SUSHILA YADAV Vs. LT COL (RETD) ATUL CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 12579/2014

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit seeking a decree of possession regarding the suit property bearing No. E-39A, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065 and other reliefs of damages, mesne profits, etc. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she is a senior citizen aged 88 years and the absolute owner of the suit property vide perpetual lease deed dated 02.04.1971. The property was converted into a freehold vide conveyance deed dated 17.01.2005. As per the plaint in 2008 defendant No.1 who is the plaintiff's nephew (son of her elder brother) who was residing in Canada came back to India and on whose request, the plaintiff permitted defendant No. 1 to reside in a portion of the suit property as he had no suitable accommodation to reside in. He was said to have been residing in the front portion of the ground floor and lower ground floor. It is urged that the defendant became dishonest, broke upon the locks, illegally trespassed and took illegal possession of the front portion of the first and second floor of the suit property which was lying locked and started additions and alterations. Defendant No.1, it is stated, started construction on the third floor without the consent of the plaintiff contrary to the sanction plan. A complaint was filed with the MCD and the police. Appropriate authorities acted on the complaint and demolished the unauthorised construction. It is urged that the possession of the defendant is purely permissive and the defendants are living gratuitously.

(3.) The defendants have filed their written statement. They have defended the suit in the written statement essentially on the ground that they have with the express consent of the plaintiff carried out works of permanent character on the suit property and have incurred heavy expenses. Hence it is argued that the license of the defendants is irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. In the written statement, it is further averred that the property E-39 A, East of Kailash, New Delhi measures 460 sq. yards. It is admitted that the property stands in the name of the plaintiff. It is urged that the suit plot is divided roughly into two equal halves on which two distinct houses stand which accommodate the two respective families of the two brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is an unmarried spinster. The Eastern Wing of the property is said to be in possession of the defendants and the other half portion which is called the Western Wing is in possession of the children of late Sh. Satish Chandra Yadav, the uncle of defendant No. 1 and the other brother of the plaintiff. It is urged that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had a very cordial and close relationship. It is stated that the plaintiff has no children of her own and virtually raised defendant No.1, the elder brother's son as her own son. It is urged that the present suit is essentially instigated and is in reality being prosecuted by the wife and children of late Sh. Satish Chandra Yadav(younger brother of the plaintiff) who is the uncle of the first defendant. These persons, it is said, are residing in the Western Wing. It is urged that the plaintiff had two brothers and one sister. The sister late Ms. Saroj Nalini is also unmarried.