SAT PARKASH Vs. FAQIR CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit has been filed for declaration, possession and recovery of mesne profits in respect of the property bearing No. 13, cinema site, Krishan Nagar, Delhi. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that he is the owner of the shop plot of land measuring about 66.6 sq.yards. The said plot was purchased by him from Shri Om Parkash Goela vide sale deed dated 29th April 1955 executed by Shri Om Parkash Goela in favour of the plaintiff and it was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. Delhi as Document No.5520 in Book No.1 Vol.2970 at pages 372 to 375 on 21st October, 1955. The said Om Parkash Goela had earlier purchased the plot from Delhi Land and Auto Finance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "DLF") and a sale deed was executed in his favour. The said sale deed was registered as Document No.1269 in Additional Book No.1 in Book No.231 at pages 140 to 141 on 4th March, 1950 in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Delhi.

(2.) It is next submitted that the plaintiff had always been in possession of the said plot of land since 1955 as a consequence of the purchase from Shri Om Parkash Goela and has been paying property tax. The plaintiff had also applied to Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other authorities concerned for the construction of the property on the plot of land. The sanction to construct property was granted to the plaintiff according to the plans submitted by him vide letter dated 20th June, 1968. The plaintiff started construction in or about April 1969. The construction, however, was discontinued because of paucity of funds and other reasons and the plaintiff was able to construct only two temporary structures over the suit property which was duly mutated in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in favour of the plaintiff who had been paying property and other taxes'. The Defendant is an occupant of adjoining plots bearing Nos. 14, 15, and 16 cinema site, Krishan Nagar, Delhi.

(3.) The plaintiff had been in Government service and as such was out of Delhi. He had been living at Chandigarh and Amritsar for last many years on account of his assignment. The father of the plaintiff 'Shri Shree Ram' Chibber was living at 400 Jeel Kuranja since about 1969 and the defendant allegedly had been visiting the father of the plaintiff during his life time and had developed friendly relations with him. The father of the plaintiff was an old of about 93 years of age and was stated to senile due to his old age. He was neither the owner of the property in dispute nor was he in possession of the property nor he was authorised and his father at any time to do any act or deed in respect of the said plot of land on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to Delhi in the middle of August 1983 and was surprised to see the defendant in possession of the disputed plot. On being asked to vacate the same the defendant claimed himself to be owner of the plot allegedly on the basis of a sale deed purported to have been executed by father of the plaintiff Thereafter the plaintiff enquired from his father who told him that the defendant used to come very frequently and was giving an impression to looking after him in his old days and he had become fond of the defendant and signed certain documents at his instance without knowing their contents and without receiving any money or any consideration from the defendant. It was reiterated that the plaintiff's father was not aware of the details of the alleged deed which the defendant had got signed from him under influence and misrepresentation. This document of sale was executed on 20th July, 1983 between the father of the plaintiff Shri Shree Ram Chibber and the defendant. The said father expired on 23rd August, 1983. The following pleas are raised by the plaintiff in the suit which are incorporated in paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the plaint :-