BHAGWAN DEVI Vs. PREMWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a peculiar case, where daughter in the second appeal, having lost her case before both the courts below, is trailing her coat tails against her mother. Appellant is the real daughter of Premwati respondent / plaintiff. Respondent is the owner of the property bearing no. D-1/88(D-1/69), Ashok Nagar, Kachcha House, P.S. Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi. The respondent purchased this property from Alok Kumar vide GPA, Affidavit, Agreement and receipt dated 25.06.1990 for consideration of Rs.48,000/-. At that time the suit property comprised of one room along with boundary wall. After the marriage of appellant, she could not find a house to stay and as such respondent allowed her to stay in the suit property becauC.R.P.Cse it was lying vacant at that time. The appellant had assured to vacate the premises when she was able to acquire suitable accommodation for her family. In the meantime, sons of the respondent got married and the number of her family member increased. She asked the appellant to vacate the premises but she declined. The respondent got constructed the remaining suit property and shifted therein about few years back along with her sons and his family members. The request made by the respondent to the appellant to vacate the premises time and again fell on deaf ears. Consequently, the instant suit for possession and mesne profit was filed on 12.07.2005.

(2.) The respondent contested this suit tooth and nail. Her principal defence is that she had shifted in the disputed suit property in the year 1989 along with her family members which was an abandoned piece of land measuring 60 square yards. She had erected a jhuggi in the said piece of land. She constructed a room in the year 1993 along with latrine and bathroom. She pointed out that the respondent has got no right, title or interest in the suit property and as such she became the owner of suit property by 14 years of adverse possession. Again, the respondent has falsely relied upon false and fabricated documents which are not legally admissible. She averred that the respondent did not approach the court with clean hands and she does not have any cause of action. It was further explained that on 16.11.2003, the respondent came to meet the appellant and stayed there for a night. On the next following morning, the son of the respondent also arrived there. They asked the appellant to vacate the suit property as respondent wanted to construct the suitable accommodation for her family. The respondent was, however, able to occupy half of the plot i.e. 30 sq. yards out of 60 sq. yards. In the meantime, the appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent on 09.12.2003. The suit of the appellant was decreed with regard to the relief of permanent injunction but the relief of declaration was not granted in her favour on the ground that she had failed to produce any document regarding her ownership, vide order dated 07.01.2005.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant had become the owner of the case property by adverse possession. He, however, admitted that there is no documentary evidence with the appellant which may go to prove that she has got any right, title or interest in the case property.