GOPAL KRISHAN MEHTA Vs. VINOD WADHWA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 14th November, 2002, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff/ appellant are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of plot No. 29, measuring 300 square yards on CSIR House Building Society Limited at Karkardooma, Delhi. The society is presently known as Vigyan Lok, Karkardooma, Delhi. The defendant has wrongly got his name recorded as owner in the records of the above society and other government departments. The plaintiff has also prayed for consequential relief of a decree for possession in respect of the plot in question. The plaintiff has alleged that in the year 1969, Late Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa was a member of CSIR House Building Society as he was a government servant at that time. The said society applied for allotment of land with the Delhi Development Authority for members of the society. The land was allotted by the Delhi Development Authority to the said society for the benefit of its members and Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 4800/ - for the aforesaid plot as its member. The said Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa was not in a position to pay the said amount being cost of the plot and Therefore he requested the plaintiff to pay him this amount and offered that he will take this plot in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant, late Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa also assured him that he will purchase half share from the plaintiff by paying Rs. 2400/ - at a later date. The plaintiff paid Rs. 4800/ - to the said Late Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa by way of a bank draft in the name of the above said society on 22.04.1969 being the total cost of the plot. Thereafter, Late Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa told the plaintiff that he had purchased the plot in the name of the plaintiff from the above said society and after receipt of the letter of agreement and offer of possession, he will inform the plaintiff about the same. The said Jaswant Rai Wadhwa never informed the plaintiff about the delivery of the possession of the plot by the society till his death. After death of Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa, the plaintiff made several requests to defendant No. 1, son of Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa to give him possession of the said plot and defendant Nos.1 and 2 also assured him that they will inform the plaintiff as soon as the possession of the plot is offered to them by the society. But the defendants with malafide intention did not hand over possession of the plot to the plaintiff and they took the possession of the plot from the society and started raising construction on the same. The plaintiff tried to persuade the defendants to stop the construction and hand over the possession of the plot to the plaintiff but they refused to hand over the possession of the plot to the plaintiff and hence this suit.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the defendants, they took several objections to the effect that this suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and that this Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. They had stated that even if it is established that Late Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa had borrowed money from the plaintiff, the said money was repaid to the plaintiff by their father. They denied that they had assured the plaintiff that they will deliver the possession of the plot to him since the same is delivered by the society to the defendants. The possession of the said plot was handed over by the society to Late Sh. Jaswant Rai Wadhwa in the early 70's and he had constructed residential house on this plot in the year 1984 -85. Ever since then, the defendants and their family members are living in the said house. This fact has also been in the knowledge of the plaintiff that the construction was raised on the plot and the defendants were living in the said house. They also stated that plaintiff had got no right, title or interest in the property in suit and the suit may be dismissed. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, he reaffirmed the averments raised in the plaint and denied by the defendants in the written statement.

(3.) WHETHER the suit is barred by limitation. OPD -2?