LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-165

SOHAN LAL Vs. SOBHA SHUKLA

Decided On September 01, 2016
SOHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
Sobha Shukla Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 13.4.2015 and the First Appellate Court dated 3.5.2016; by which the courts below have decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction. Operative paragraph 30 of the judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit reads as under:-

(2.) The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that she purchased the basement/lower ground floor of the property bearing No. 277/7, Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi, as per documentation dated 26.10.2005 from Sh. Kuljeet Singh. The title documents included registered General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit etc. By these documents proved as Ex.PW1/16 (colly) before the trial court, respondent/plaintiff purchased rights in the suit property along with common passage for approach, staircase etc. The respondent/plaintiff was enjoying the common passage, staircase and bathroom on the ground floor since the date of purchase of the suit property and the respondent/plaintiff had installed entrance gate and the door at the back portion of the common passage with the joint funds with other shopkeepers for safety purpose. Electricity meter of the respondent/plaintiff was also installed at the common passage of the ground floor of the suit property. That the appellant/defendant has wilfully and illegally blocked the common passage by keeping his almirah and table and he also has locked the bathroom. Appellant/defendant was seeking to create hindrance in the use of the common passage, and also the bathroom and was trying to illegally put locks at the ground floor of the suit property. Appellant/defendant was also illegally trying to build the staircase on the back portion of the suit property, therefore, closing the door of the back portion as well as the window of the basement property of the respondent/plaintiff. he subject suit hence was filed by the respondent/plaintiff with the following prayers:-

(3.) Appellant/Defendant filed his written statement and denied the rights of the respondent/plaintiff in the common passage or the bathroom or in the back portion. It was pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff had no rights in the common passage or the back portion or the bathroom of the ground floor of the property.