NARAINI DEVI AND ROOP KISHORE Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16 March 1991 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for possession of the property in suit and also for recovery of Rs.10,800.00 as damages.

(2.) The plaintiff (now the respondent) averred that he purchased the property bearing House No. X/2816, Gali No.5, Raghbarpura-II, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, from his brother Dev Raj on 13 July 1977 for a consideration of Rs.10,000.00. Plaintiff said out of this amount, Rs.8,000.00 were paid to Dev Raj before the Sub-Registrar and Rs.2,000.00 had been paid earlier. Then the plaintiff said that Dev Raj also handed over to him the sale deed as executed between them and also gave him the possession of the property in part performance of the sale consideration. Plaintiff says that after he took over the possession of the property from Dev Raj he let out a portion of the properly to Dev Raj at the rate of Rs.80.00 per month. There were two defendants who are now the appellants, both are husband and wife. Plaintiff said that the defendants knew that he was owner of the property having purchased the same from Dev Raj alid they were neighbours of Dev Raj as they had been residing in property bearing No. 2981, Gali No.4, Raghbarpura, Delhi, and were friently with Dev Raj. Plaintiff then alleged that the defendants joined hands to defraud him and to usurp the property. He served a notice dated 21 April 1981 on the defendant No.1. Then the plaintiff says he came to know that the defendants were conspiring to forcibly occupy the property which the plaintiff had purchased. No reply was sent by the first defendant to the plaintiff and then the plaintiff further adds that the defendants illegally trespassed into portion of the property which was lying vacant and that comprised one shed, latrine, bath, water hand pump, etc. The plaintiff described this property as red in the plan which he filed along with the plaint. According to the plaintiff, therefore, the defendants committed trespass in 1983 and thereafter made certain additions and alterations in the property without the consent of the plaintiff. Since the defendants did not vacate the properly and also did not pay any damages for illegal use and occupation thereof, the plaintiff not only sued for possessioin but also claimed damages at the rate of Rs.300.00 per month which amounted to Rs.10,800.00 for the last three years. The suit was filed on or about 16 July 1987.,

(3.) Defendants, on the other hand, said that the plaintiff had no cause of action and they also raised some preliminary objections about the maintainability of the suit, valuation thereof and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court trying the suit. They said in fact first defendant No.l had purchased the property by agreement dated 11 March 1981 from Dev Raj for a consideration of Rs.17,000.00 which fact Dev Raj acknowledged and gave a receipt evidencing that the defendants had purchased 80 sq. yards in the property whole of which the plaintiff had said he had purchased from his brother Dev Raj. Defendants then said that Dev Raj also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.l and also executed certain documents evidencing sale of the property to the first defendant. Defendants then say they are in possession of the property by virtue of the agreement to sell and have also become owner on account of execution of various documents. Defendants have questioned the right of the plaintiff to file this suit and his motive as well.