MEENA & ORS Vs. RAM KISHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2017 by which a decree of possession has been passed against the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter referred as Defendant) in respect of the First Floor of property bearing Municipal No.52, measuring 170 sq yds, Lal Dora (1908-09) Abadi of Kalu Sarai, Khasra No.288/249/2 Min, Opp. Azad Apartment, IIT Gate, New Delhi-110016.

(2.) In brief, the case of the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred as Plaintiff) is that by virtue of registered sale deed executed on 5th May, 2008 by the previous owner Sh. Ramesh Chandra Gupta, the Plaintiff became the owner of the property. The Defendant-Smt. Meena is the wife of Mr. Binder who was working as a driver with the Plaintiff and the family was allowed to stay in the suit property as it was lying vacant. The husband of the Defendant passed away and after his demise, repeated requests were made to the Defendant to vacate the suit property. On 3rd January, 2010, the Defendant was asked to vacate, however, despite the same, she did not vacate the premises. Hence, the present suit was filed seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) In the written statement, the basic contention of the Defendant is that she had filed a suit for injunction in which she had agreed that the owner of the property is the Waqf Board and that suit was dismissed and the findings in the said suit would bind the present suit. The case of the Defendant is that she had possession of the First Floor from Late Sh. Bhagwan who was the real owner and her husband had paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and got the ownership documents. The said documents were then burnt in a fire. Thereafter, it is her case that her husband was paying Rs.2, 000/- per month as further instalments, which was deducted from his salary by Late Sh. Bhagwan. It was further pleaded in the written statement that the suit property is a government property and that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the property. The documents of ownership relied upon by the Plaintiff are forged and fabricated.