PUSHPA DEVI & ORS. Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of.

(2.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 22.8.2015 and the first appellate court dated 27.1.2017; by which the courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction being not maintainable as regards the relief of injunction on account of appellants/plaintiffs being not in possession of the suit property and that no relief having been sought by the appellants/plaintiffs for possession of the suit property. The suit seeking the relief of declaration has been dismissed as time-barred. The suit has been disposed of at the stage of pleadings.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed the subject suit claiming rights in the property admeasuring 84.5 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra no. 396 of property no. 11, Jangpura Road, Bhogal, New Delhi. It was pleaded that the suit property belonged to the forefathers of the appellants/plaintiffs. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the suit property was partitioned between the legal heirs of Sh. Khiman Lal and appellants/plaintiffs became owners of the suit land admeasuring 84.5 sq. yards. It was pleaded by the appellants/plaintiffs that they had entered into an agreement to sell of the suit property with one Sh. Pawan Saraswat on 19.3.2007 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and the appellants/plaintiffs had executed an agreement to sell and receipt of earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- and handed over possession to the purchaser Sh. Pawan Saraswat. It was further pleaded in the plaint that as per the agreement to sell appellants/plaintiffs had to get the suit property mutated in their names and get permissions from the concerned department, but departments failed to mutate the suit property in the names of the appellants/plaintiffs and also did not grant permission to sell the property. It is further pleaded in the plaint that during the pendency of an earlier suit filed by Sh. Pawan Saraswat against the present appellants/plaintiffs, the present respondent/defendant filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and got himself impleaded in the said suit. The present respondent/defendant in the earlier suit claimed ownership of the suit property in terms of the documents being the agreement to sell, Will, etc. in his favour dated 8.4.1987 and also a sale deed dated 3.8.1993 and surrender deed dated 18.11.1994. It was further pleaded in the plaint that during the pendency of the said earlier suit it was found by the appellants/plaintiffs that the respondent/defendant claimed that he had purchased the suit property by virtue of documents dated 8.4.1987 after paying Rs.45,000/- and the respondent/defendant relied upon sale deed dated 3.8.1993 and alleged surrender deed dated 18.11.1994. Appellants/plaintiffs pleaded that these documents are forged and fabricated as husband/father of the appellants/plaintiffs had no intention to sell the suit property and had never executed the documents being relied upon by the respondent/defendant. It was pleaded in the plaint that the respondent/defendant has no right, title and interest in the suit property and is not in possession of the suit property and that the respondent/defendant on the basis of forged and fabricated documents intends to grab the suit property. It was then finally pleaded in the plaint that there was endeavor to take forcible possession of the suit property from the appellants/plaintiffs and therefore the subject suit came to be filed seeking the following reliefs:-