SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. MAHENDRI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff/sister against her respondent no.1/ defendant no.1/ real sister/ for possession and mesne profits with respect to half portion of the property being H. No.140, Gali No.2, Bhagatan Mohalla, Village Ghonda Shahdara, Delhi as shown in Red Column in Site Plan Ex. PW1/1. The trial court has dismissed the suit essentially on the ground that documents as per which the appellant/plaintiff claims co-ownership of the suit property with the respondent no.1/defendant no.1/sister, are unregistered and unstamped documents, and therefore the said documents do not confer any title upon the appellant/plaintiff in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that she and the respondent no. 1/defendant no.1, both being sisters, were owners of the suit property. The said suit property was purchased by the father, Sh. Ram Saran, in the joint names of the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in terms of the set of documentation dated 03.05.1989 executed by the erstwhile owner Smt. Satya Wati. The appellant/plaintiff pleaded that her father undertook two separate constructions/ buildings on the suit plot. The respective two portions were divided by a wall while the North side portion belonged to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and the South side portion was in the name of the appellant/plaintiff. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that respondent nos.2 and 3/defendant nos.2 and 3, who are the husband and son of respondent no.1/defendant no.1 respectively, illegally entered into possession of the portion belonging to the appellant/plaintiff and therefore she was forced to file the subject suit for possession.

(3.) Respondent nos.1 to 3/Defendant nos.1 to 3 contested the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit by raising various preliminary objections which are not stated in detail herein inasmuch as the same are immaterial. The main defence raised in the preliminary objection was that the suit was barred by limitation i.e. effectively the defence being of a claim of adverse possession with respect to which an issue was framed and decided by the trial court against the respondent nos.1 to 3/defendant no.1 to 3 and in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. The respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos.1 to 3 pleaded that the respondent no. 1/defendant no.1 is the sole and exclusive owner of the property in question on account of adverse possession for the past 22 years since the property was purchased in the year 1989. Respondent nos.1 to 3/Defendant nos. 1 to 3 also denied that the suit property was jointly owned by the appellant/plaintiff and respondent no.1/defendant no.1. In para 2 of the written statement, it was pleaded by the respondent nos.1 to 3/defendant nos.1 to 3 that the suit property was purchased in the name of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 by savings and funds of the respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2. There is reference to a bayana amount being paid by the respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2 to the erstwhile owner on 001989 and further that the entire amount was paid by the respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2. Suit was hence prayed to be dismissed.