SMT. GURMEET KAUR Vs. SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the legal heir of the plaintiff Sh. Sarwan Singh impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 10.4.2008 and the First Appellate Court dated 29.1.2016; by which the suit for possession and damages filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Since the plaintiff expired pendente lite and was now substituted by his legal heir, reference to the appellant/plaintiff as per the context will be reference to the present legal heir or the original plaintiff.

(2.) The subject suit for possession and damages was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for possession of a portion of flat bearing no.C-3/132, Plot no.25, Saraswati Kunj, Patparganj, IP Extension, Delhi. The suit flat comprises of three bed rooms, two bathrooms, one drawing room, balcony and kitchen. The portion in occupation of the defendants/respondents was shown as in blue color in the site plan filed with the plaint. The respondent no.1/defendant no.1 is the son of the original plaintiff and the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 is the wife of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 i.e respondent no.2/defendant no.2 is the daughter-in-law of the original plaintiff Sh. Sarwan Singh.

(3.) The case set out in the plaint was that the plaintiff Sh. Sarwan Singh purchased the suit property in terms of the documentation dated 19.4.1995 executed by the erstwhile owner Sh. Pawan Kumar in favour of the plaintiff. The documents dated 19.4.1995 are agreement to sell, payment receipt and general power of attorney. The plaintiff allowed the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 to stay in a portion of the suit property as he was the son of the plaintiff. Respondent no.1/defendant no.1 is a divorcee and he married the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 on 9.7.2000 and therefore respondent no.2/defendant no.2 also started living with the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in the portion of the suit property. As per the plaint, the plaintiff was harassed by the respondents/defendants and consequently he went to reside with his daughter at Ambala in April, 2003. Plaintiff's wife had expired on 12.4.2002. The plaintiff subsequently came back to reside in the suit property when he asked the respondents/defendants to vacate the suit property. Ultimately on failure of the respondents/defendants to vacate the suit property a legal notice dated 24.9.2003 was served upon the respondents/defendants terminating the licence and which notice was served on 15.10.2003. The subject suit was ultimately filed for possession and damages against the respondents/defendants.