YOGENDRA PRASAD Vs. HEERAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 CPC by the appellant/ defendant to assail the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned ADJ -03 (SW), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in RCA No. 48/2012. By the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appellant's first appeal preferred to assail the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2012 passed by the learned ACJ -cum -ARC, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Civil Suit No. 285/2009 titled Heerawati Devi Vs. Yogender Prasad. The Trial Court by the said judgment and decree, decreed the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff thereby directing the appellant/ defendant to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, and also awarded mesne profit from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of possession @ Rs. 2,000/ - per month, subject to filing of Court Fees.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that she purchased a plot No. 1 measuring 56 sq. yards falling in Khasra No. 31/4 situated in the revenue estate of village Kakrula, Delhi in the abadi of the colony known as Bharat Vihar, New Delhi from one Nand Lal, S/o Sh. Ram Jas for a consideration of Rs. 90,120/ -. On urbanization, the said Plot No. 1 was initially numbered as House No. B -49, B -Block, Bharat Vihar, Kakrula, New Delhi, and subsequently, it was re -numbered as B -118, Block -B, Bharat Vihar, Kakrula, New Delhi.

(3.) THE plaintiff further stated that the defendant filed a false and frivolous suit being Suit No. 102/2009 against the plaintiff and her husband seeking permanent and mandatory injunction in the Court of the Civil Judge/ ARC, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. In the said suit, the defendant in the present suit had averred that the plot in question was purchased from one Sh. Nand Lal, S/o Sh. Ramjas, R/o village Kakrula for a total sale consideration of Rs. 18,525/ - @ Rs. 325/ - per sq. yard in the name of the present plaintiff (who was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in Suit No. 102/2009). The defendant herein had claimed that the cost of the plot was equally borne by the defendant herein, Sh. Krishan Kumar - the husband of the plaintiff herein, and one Kishore Kumar.