VINAY KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. RADHA RANI AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter, 'Defendant') impugning the judgement and decree dated 29th November, 2016 passed by the Trial court in Suit No. 15138/2016, whereby the suit for possession was decreed in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, 'Plaintiff') under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, 'CPC').

(2.) The Plaintiff filed a suit for possession, damages/mesne profits and permanent injunction against the Defendant claiming to be the owner of the property bearing No.18/8, Shakti Nagar, Delhi 110007 (hereinafter, 'suit property'). The Defendant, the elder son of the Plaintiff, was allowed to occupy one room of the suit property, with attached w/c, half balcony on the mezzanine floor and 1/3rd kitchen on the ground floor on a license without charge. It was alleged that the Defendant was misbehaving with the Plaintiff and her husband, on which ground the license granted to him was terminated orally on 1st May, 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant was asked to vacate the suit property by 16th May, 2013, failing which the suit was instituted against him on 27th May, 2013 in the Trial court.

(3.) The Plaintiff moved an application under Order XII, Rule 6 of the CPC, on the ground that the Defendant, in an earlier suit filed by him against the Plaintiff and M/s TATA Power Delhi Distribution Ltd being Suit No. 39/2013, admitted that the Plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. The Trial court, in its judgment held this to be a judicial admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, and rejected the submission of the Defendant that the suit property was purchased by the grandfather. Accordingly, on 29th November, 2016, the Trial court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. Hence, the present appeal.