KOMAL & ORS Vs. PANCHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.08.2016 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-05, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (in short 'learned ADJ') against them by which Civil Suit No.86/2016 of the respondent/plaintiff for possession of the suit property was decreed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed an indigent suit under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') for possession of House No.395, Block No.F, Raj Nagar Extension, Ambedkar Marg, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi against the appellants/defendants on the grounds that the respondent/plaintiff had purchased the said property on 04.11.1980 from the previous owner Sh. Zile Singh. The suit property is recorded as plot No.34 measuring 100 square yards (at present 60 square yards) and consisting of Khasra No.51/19/3 and 20/3, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi. She claimed that the present area is 60 square yards as later on she sold part of its portion. It is pleaded that after purchasing the plot, she constructed the house by her self earned money. The appellant/defendant No.1 is her daughter-in-law being the wife of her late son Puran Chand. It is alleged that she was thrown out from the said house by appellant No.1 on 20.12.2001. She further alleged that the appellant No.1/defendant No.1 had also thrown out her husband from the said house on 25.02.2003. She alleged that she has been paying the house tax of the said house to the municipal committee regularly. She requested the appellants/defendants several times to vacate the house and handover the vacant possession thereof but of no avail.

(3.) In their written statement, it is inter alia pleaded by the appellants/defendants that the suit property was purchased from the earnings of her deceased husband. She further pleaded that after purchasing the plot, half of its portion was constructed by her husband and since then she has been living in the property. It is further pleaded that the plot was partitioned in two parts of 50 square yards each. It is further claimed that an area of 50 square yards came to the share of her husband and remaining 50 square yards fell to the share of the respondent/plaintiff, who had sold her share for consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- to some other person. She also pleaded that since the day of purchase of the property the respondent/plaintiff never resided therein. It is further pleaded that the suit is barred by time.