NAGESHWAR PANDEY Vs. KARAN MADAAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant/counter claimant who is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge wherein contentions of the plaintiffs were accepted and the suit was decreed, invoking Order XII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); the counter claim, by invoking the power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was rejected. The parties shall hereafter be referred to in accordance with their nomenclature in the suit, i.e., plaintiffs and defendant.

(2.) Three plaintiffs filed the suit; first two are businessmen and the third plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff. They alleged that the defendant was sole and exclusive owner of built -up property, No. EC -5, Inderpuri, New Delhi - 110 012 admeasuring 500 sq. yds. situated in village Naraina, Delhi ("the suit property"). Through a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2011, the defendant transferred it to the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000/ -. The plaintiffs described their respective shares in the suit property. The sale deed was registered on 02.12.2011 in the office of the Sub -Registrar No. IX, New Delhi. The plaintiffs stated that their right of possession was recognized in the sale deed, which acknowledged that vacant and physical possession of the suit property under sale has been given to the Vendees by the Vendor, "who have occupied the same." They complained that despite receipt of the entire consideration and execution of the sale deed, the defendant failed to handover vacant and physical possession of the suit property to them, citing several diverse reasons such as his wife's ill health, urgent work commitments etc. The plaintiffs stated that they did not press for immediate possession of the suit property, believing the defendant's excuses. Subsequently the plaintiffs exerted pressure on the defendant to handover possession of the suit property. The suit alleged that the defendant threatened and intimidated the plaintiffs with dire consequences every time he was asked to hand over the possession.

(3.) The plaintiffs mentioned a legal notice dated 20.04.2012 issued on their behalf to the defendant demanding vacant, physical and unencumbered possession of the suit property. The suit alleged that on 28.04.2012, the defendant met the plaintiffs and agreed to resolve the matter amicably. The same day, the defendant handed over vacant, unencumbered and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs against a possession slip. The plaintiffs took possession of the suit property on 28.04.2012 and shifted some furniture and crockery into the suit property. They scheduled a "Greh Pravesh" (house warming ceremony) the next day i.e. 29.04.2012, a Sunday. That day the defendant allegedly forcibly took back the possession of the suit property. The suit alleged that the plaintiffs called the police station and lodged a complaint by dialing number 100. They complained of having been forced to leave the suit property under duress and without consent. They filed a separate complaint for criminal trespass and criminal intimidation, which is pending investigation. They alleged that the suit property is lying vacant under the lock of the defendant, who is resident of the adjoining property bearing No. EC -4, Inderpuri, New Delhi. It is under these circumstances that the plaintiffs claimed vacant, physical possession of the suit property on the basis of their title. They also claimed damages on account of being out of possession of the suit property.