GIRDHARI LAL Vs. KAILASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the suit for possession of the plot measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing No. 165 (old) and 329 (New), part of Khasra No. 185/ 150, within the revenue estate of Village Garhi Jharia Maria, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, now known as Sant Nagar Colony against seven defendants. According to the plaintiff, the property was purchased from the first defendant by a sale deed dated 9.2.1959. The plot was lying vacant and Sant Nagar Colony was not an authorised one. In the year 1978 the plaintiff came to know that the Colony had been approved by the DDA and the owners of the plots were asked to pay development charges. Pursuant to the demand made by the DDA the plaintiff deposited a sun of Rs. 4,830.00 towards development charges on 30.12.1978. In or about 1981 the plaintiff requested the 7th defendant Mr. Kuldeep Mahajan to look after the plot In the month of March / April, 1982 the plaintiff entered into an agreement for the sal of the plot in favour of defendants-. 5 to 7. The agreement was entered into on 30.4.1982 for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000.00 After the execution of the agreement, the 5th defendant Mr. Raman Malhotra and the plaintiif went to the plot and found that defendants 1 to 4 had trespassed into the land. The matter was reported to the police at the Police Station, LajpatNagar. Police took action u/Sec. 107, Criminal Procedure Code Defendant No. I had filed a suit for injunction on 26.5.1982 in the lower Court. Defendants I to 4 are tress-passers. They have no right to be in possession of the property. The property is capable of fetching Rs. 500.00 per month. The plaintiff issued notice to defendants I to 4 calling upon them to vacate the plot and to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 500.00 per month. A reply was sent by defendants 1 to 4 containing false allegations. The plaintiff claims Rs. 6,500.00 beingthe mesneprofits till30.4.1983. The plaint was presented on 25.5.1983. The plaintiff accordingly prays for decree of possession and inesne profits.

(2.) On 28.10.1983 defendants 1 to 4 filed the written statement. According to the defendants I to 4, the suit is time barred. The defendants I to 4 have been in possession of the property for more than 26 years. The suit has been filed to harass the first defendant. The suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. This Court has no jurisdiction. The suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff has not paid Court fee for both the reliefs of possession and mesne profits. The sale deed is a forged and fabricated document. First defendant had already filed a Suit No. 361/82 in the file of Mr. S.M. Chopra, Sub-Judge, Delhi, titled as Kailash Chand, Krishna Kumari v. Girdhari Lal. The attesting witnesses are fictitious persons and even if there are signatures by attesting witnesses they are forged and fabricated. The possession is always with these defendants. The payment of Rs. 4,830.00 to the DDA is false and the receipt, if any, is forged and fabricated. The other allegations in the written statement need not be recounted.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the replication traversing the allegations in the written statement filed by defendants I to 4 and it is wholly unnecessary to refer to them.