BHUSHAN KUMAR KHANNA Vs. ASHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the First Appellate Court dated 9.10.2015 and the Trial Court dated 16.8.2014; by which judgments the courts below have dismissed the suit for possession and injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the suit property bearing no.B-95, Gandhi Vihar, Delhi-110009 situated on plot of land admeasuring 25 sq. yds. Appellant/plaintiff also challenges the Order dated 4.4.2016 dismissing the his review petition filed against the Judgment dated 9.10.2015.

(2.) The case set up by the appellant/plaintiff was that the original allottee of the suit property was one Sh. Inder Singh. Sh. Inder Singh had executed a Will dated 5.12.1992 in favour of his widow Smt. Sona Devi and who sold the property further by means of usual documentation to one Sh. Kanwarjeet Khanna. Sh. Kanwarjeet Khanna thereafter transferred rights in the suit property to Sh. Balvinder Singh vide documents dated 3.6.1997 and from Sh. Balvinder Singh the present appellant purchased rights by means of documents dated 21.7.1997. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that when he purchased the suit property he only received symbolic possession because the respondent/defendant requested 2-3 months time to vacate the suit property on the ground that her minor son was only about 2 years old and was ill and hence respondent/defendant was not in a position to immediately shift. This request of the respondent/defendant is said to have been accepted by the appellant/plaintiff but since the respondent/defendant failed to vacate the suit premises, therefore, the subject suit came to be filed on 13.4.2005.

(3.) The defence of the respondent/defendant is that she is the daughterin-law of the original allottee Sh. Inder Singh and his widow Smt. Sona Devi. It is pleaded that the entire chain of documents relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff are forged and fabricated because such documents never saw the light of the day from the year 1997 till the suit was filed on 13.4.2005. It is argued that actually the respondent's/defendant's mother-in-law alongwith her son Sh. Om Prakash, who is the estranged husband of the respondent/defendant, have contrived so as to oust the respondent/defendant from the suit property which was in fact given to her in lieu of maintenance. It is also pleaded by the respondent/defendant that she had filed a suit for permanent injunction against her in-laws and in this suit vide Order dated 15.5.2001 passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC the in-laws were restrained from selling or transferring the suit property, and hence there could not be transfer of title in favour of the appellant/plaintiff or some of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant. Finally, the respondent/defendant pleaded that in fact in execution proceedings bearing Ex. No.9/9/08 arising out of proceedings under Section 125 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) her in-laws had settled the matter with her and executed a Settlement Deed dated 30.11.2009 whereby the in-laws have given up rights in the suit property to the respondent/defendant in lieu of right of maintenance of the respondent/defendant.