MANOJ KUMAR Vs. R.K. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 12.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge -02 (South - West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in RCA No. 05/14/12 preferred by the appellant/ defendant No. 1, in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1. By the impugned judgment & decree, the first appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed, and the judgment & decree passed in favour of the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff by the learned Civil Judge -01 (South -West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in C.S. No. 146/2011 - decreeing possession of the suit property and for mesne profits @ Rs. 5,000/ - per month w.e.f. 03.10.2008 to 02.12.2008, and damages @ Rs. 5,000/ - per month from the date of institution of suit till the date of handing over of possession and also granting injunctive relief to the plaintiff, has been affirmed.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1/ plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit on the premise that he had purchased the suit property bearing No. RZ -26 measuring 40 square yards situated at Shankar Park, Gali Baba Balak Nath Mandir, West Sagar Pur, Delhi from Sh. Lallu Prasad vide a registered sale deed dated 29.08.2008. The plaintiff claimed that the two defendants in the suit, namely, the appellant (defendant No. 1) and Sh. Trilok (defendant No. 2) were the licensees in the suit property under Sh. Lallu Prasad. At the time of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff claimed, that the defendants had promised to vacate the property within a period of one month. However, they had failed to do so. Consequently, after issuance of legal notice dated 18.09.2008 terminating their license and requiring the defendants to deliver peaceful vacant possession of the property, the suit was filed claiming possession with damages at the rate of Rs. 5000/ - per month with effect from 03.10.2008.

(3.) THE appellant/ defendant further stated that in the sale deed propounded by the plaintiff, it has been recorded that he had been delivered the possession of the suit property, whereas the property was, admittedly, in the possession of the defendant. The primary defence raised by the appellant/ defendant was that the defendant/ appellant, along with his father, was in possession of the suit property since 30.05.1984 where he had been residing. It was claimed that the possession of the defendant/ appellant and his father was hostile, and the defendant claimed that he had acquired title to suit property by adverse possession. On the basis of the pleadings, the first issue framed by the Court was whether defendant No. 1/ appellant had become the owner of the suit premises by adverse possession. The parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW -1 and exhibited several documents, including the sale deed in his favour being Ex.PW -1/1A. Defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW -1. He also exhibited several documents. He was also cross -examined by the plaintiff.