SAVITRI DEVI Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Savitri Devi, the appellant/plaintiff, has put up a challenge to the judgment dated 09.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge -01(East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RCA No. 27/2011 whereby the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 538/2007 whereby the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed, has been upheld and affirmed.

(2.) The appellant had preferred the suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction seeking a direction to the respondent/defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property, (a house), and permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant in creating any third party interest in the suit property.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from the father of the respondent in the year 2011. Since the father of the respondent was not being looked after well, he was permitted to stay in the suit property where he stayed till his death on 03.02.2002. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant/plaintiff claimed that the respondent/defendant made forcible occupation of the remaining portion of the suit property by ousting a tenant. The property was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/ - vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, receipt, affidavit and registered Will dated 23.01.2001. It was asserted in the plaint that the possession was handed over by the father of the respondent/defendant on the same day of the purchase. The aforesaid suit was contested by the respondent/defendant primarily on the ground that the documents conveying the property to the appellant/plaintiff was executed by the father of the respondent in a state of drunken stupor and the father of the respondent had earlier lodged a complaint before the police regarding the same. It was further averred in the written statement that the suit property always remained in the possession of the father of the respondent/defendant wherein the respondent/defendant stayed with his family during the life time of his father and thereafter. A counter claim was also lodged by the respondent/defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant/plaintiff from taking possession from the respondent/defendant as also from creating any third party rights in the suit property.