BRIJ PAL Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 by virtue of which the suit for possession of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed by the learned Senior Civil Judge -cum -RC (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the petitioner/defendant in respect of one room of property No. 29/11, Main Road, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi - 32, more particularly shown as red in the site plan Ex.PW -1/1. The case which was set up by the respondent/plaintiff was that he was the owner and landlord of the property No. 29/11, Main Road, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi -110032 having purchased the same from one Jai Singh son of Sh. Birmanand vide documents, namely, General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW -1/2), agreement to sell (Ex. PW -1/3), receipt (Ex. PW -1/4), Will (Ex. PW -1/5), Affidavit (Ex. PW -1/6) and possession letter (Ex. PW -1/7) on 03.02.1999. It was stated since the said date the respondent/plaintiff along with his family members was residing in one room of the aforesaid property. So far as the petitioner/defendant is concerned it was stated that he has no right, title or interest in the suit property but was extending threats to dispossess the respondent/plaintiff. It was alleged that the petitioner/defendant being the uncle of the respondent/plaintiff got a case under Sec. 107/151 Cr.P.C. registered at Police Station Welcome, Seelampur, Shahdara, Delhi. He was arrested on 18.10.2000 and because of the aforesaid incarceration of the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant took the advantage and conspired with the local police to forcibly take the possession of the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff on being bailed out on 20.10.2000 found the suit property lock having been broken and the possession having been taken by the petitioner/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff went to the Police Station for the purpose of lodging a report which was not registered by them because of which he was constrained to file the suit for possession.

(3.) The petitioner/defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement on 16.05.2005. It was stated that the petitioner/defendant was an employee of one Parkash Chand son of Shri Brahma resident of 29/10 -11, Babarpur, Maujpur, Shahdara, Delhi and Parkash Chand along with his two brothers, namely, Malkhan Singh and Sukhbir Singh had purchased the suit property from Brahma, father of Parkash Chand vide Sale Deed dated 26.05.1999 and it was already mutated in their names. It was also stated that so far as the respondent/plaintiff is concerned, he has no concern with the suit property and it was actually Parkash Chand, who was the co -owner along with two brothers in respect of the entire property including one room which was claimed by the respondent/plaintiff. It was also stated that a criminal case under Sec. 380/448 IPC was registered against the respondent/plaintiff and his other family members vide FIR No. 281/2000 by PS Welcome on the intervening night of 10/11.10.2000. It was also stated that the respondent/plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest in the suit property and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected. As regards the documents on the basis of which the respondent/plaintiff was claiming the ownership it was stated that these were false and fabricated documents and the suit property was actually not owned by Jai Singh but by one Brahma who had sold it to three persons, namely, Parkash Chand, Malkhan Singh and Sukhbir Singh vide Sale Deed. It was also stated that a false case under Sec. 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against Parkash Chand and his son Mool Chand and Charan Singh.