RAMA DEVI Vs. SOMPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 13.7.2015 by which the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff and decreed the suit for declaration and injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the property admeasuring 250 sq. yds. out of 533 sq. yds. comprised in property no. 57, Khasra no. 30/2, Village Pansali, now known as Deep Vihar, Delhi. Trial court by its judgment dated 28.2.2015 had dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and therefore the respondent/plaintiff was not successful in getting himself declared as owner of the suit property. Respondent/plaintiff therefore had appealed against the judgment of the trial court dated 28.2.2015 and was therefore successful in the first appellate court which passed its judgment dated 13.7.2015 decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that he is the owner of the suit property being plot no. 57, Block A, measuring 250 sq. yds. out of 533 sq. yds. comprised in khasra no. 30/2, Village Pansali, Deep Vihar Colony, Delhi. Respondent/plaintiff pleaded that he had purchased the suit property along with a large strip of land admeasuring 11888 sq. yds. in different khasra numbers of Village Pansali from its earlier recorded owners by means of Agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 18.1.1989. As per the respondent/plaintiff the land in question was purchased for developing a colony on the land by carving out plots and then selling the same. Respondent/plaintiff pleaded that he sold various plots of different sizes to different buyers, but he did not sell plot no. 57 or part thereof to anybody and that he is the owner and in possession of plot no. 57. It was further pleaded in the plaint by the respondent/plaintiff that the appellant/defendant no. 1 had no right, title and interest to the suit property and she was threatening to take physical possession of the suit property. The subject suit for declaration and injunction was therefore filed.

(3.) Appellant/defendant no. 1 contested the suit and pleaded that she had purchased the suit plot of 250 sq. yds. from one Sh. Harbhajan Lal. It was pleaded in the written statement of appellant/defendant no. 1 that the suit property was purchased from Sh. Harbhajan Lal on 20.10.1999 and usual set of documentation were executed in favor of the appellant/defendant no. 1 by Sh. Harbhajan Lal. It was further pleaded in the written statement that the respondent/plaintiff had also sold to the appellant/defendant no.1 another plot no. 74 measuring 200 sq. yds. It was pleaded that the appellant/defendant no. 1 had lodged complaints with the police because when the appellant/defendant no. 1 went to the plot to raise construction the respondent/plaintiff raised objection. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed as appellant/defendant no. 1 was pleaded to be the owner of the suit property.