LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-314

RAJ PATI & ORS Vs. MEENA DEVI

Decided On January 15, 2018
Raj Pati And Ors Appellant
V/S
MEENA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 30.11.2016 of learned Addl. District Judge in RCA No.89/2016 whereby findings of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi recorded vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014 in Suit No.438/08/10 were endorsed. The appeal is contested by the respondent.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Suit for possession, permanent injunction, damages and mesne profits was filed by the appellants against the respondent. It was averred that Ram Sumer - the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was allotted a plot bearing No.461, Block-27, Trilok Puri, Delhi (hereinafter 'the suit property') by Delhi Development Authority and its possession was handed over to him vide slip No.9197 dated 18.09.1976. Ram Sumer raised construction over the said plot after obtaining loan from State Bank of India, Himmatpuri. The suit property was let out from time to time to various tenants. It was further urged that the respondent who lived nearby was on good terms with the appellants and was requested to collect rent from the tenants. The respondent subsequently turned dishonest and started claiming herself to be the owner of the suit property. She also filed a frivolous suit for permanent injunction against the appellants which was ultimately dismissed. It was further urged that on 05.11.1999, Raj Pati - appellant No.1 went to her native place and in her absence the respondent committed tress pass in the suit property. A complaint was lodged with the police on 02.12.1999. The respondent continues to be in illegal and unlawful possession of the suit property since November, 1999. Damages @ Rs. 1,500/- per month were also claimed for illegal use and occupation of the suit property.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondent. She denied the averments of the appellants and claimed that the suit property was purchased by her from Ram Sumer vide Agreement to Sell, GPA, affidavit and Will dated 20.01.1980 and its possession was handed over to her along with possession slip. She further claimed that after purchase of the property, she raised construction over it in March, 1980.