SUNITA Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RSA 207/2016 and CM No.3147/2017 The challenge by means of this Regular Second Appeal is to the concurrent judgments dated 26th September, 2005 passed by the learned Trial Court and dated 26th April, 2016 passed by the First Appellate Court by which the civil suit No. 287/03/99 filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking possession of property bearing Plot No.537 in Khasra No.1601, situated at Sangam Vihar, Gali No.12, Block G, New Delhi, measuring 150 sq. yds. has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff is claiming her ownership in respect of the above plot on the basis of documents i.e. unregistered General Power of Attorney Ex.PW-1/1, Agreement to Sell Ex.PW1/2, Affidavit Ex.PW1/3 and Receipt Ex.PW-1/4 executed in her favour by Sh. Ram Avadh Pandey on 13th January, 1994 for sale consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/-. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the respondent/defendant had earlier (no date, month or year is mentioned in the plaint) attempted to commit trespass on her property but due to police intervention the possession was restored to her. The appellant had to visit her sister in Gorakhpur, U.P. to participate in the marriage of her daughter where she stayed for 15 days. On her return from Gorakhpur on 20th April, 1997, she found her property being trespassed by the respondent/defendant and since then he is living there illegally. She had lodged a complaint with Police Station, Okhla on 22nd April, 1997 and despite the fact that she is having title over the property nothing has been done by the police to restore the possession to her. The respondent/defendant has filed a civil suit No.511/1997 seeking permanent injunction against her which was pending trial.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff has also filed a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the defendant for his illegal and unauthorized occupation in the suit property by him which was also pending disposal before the SDM, Kalkaji. She has also pleaded that Sh. Ram Avadh Pandey from whom she purchased the suit property, is a practicing advocate at Patiala House Court. The respondent/defendant had fabricated the documents with regard to the suit property in his name whereas she is the actual owner. She prayed for decree for possession in respect of the suit property as per site plan annexed with the plaint.