LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-73

YOGESH KUMAR & ANR. Vs. BALJIT KAUR

Decided On March 14, 2018
Yogesh Kumar and Anr. Appellant
V/S
BALJIT KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the defendants in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 1.9.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for possession against the appellants/defendants with respect to suit property being a flat measuring 100 sq. yards on the first floor of property No. 2B/73, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi.

(2.) Respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for possession claiming ownership of the suit property by a chain of title deeds with the last owner being Smt. Sheela Harchandani and her husband Sh. Ram Harchandani who transferred rights in the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff in terms of documentation dated 9.4.2009 being the registered agreement to sell Ex. PW1/10, receipt Ex.PW1/11, registered general power of attorney Ex.PW1/12. The site plan of the suit property has been proved as Ex.PW1/13. Since the chain of title documents is long and detailed and this has been exhaustively dealt with by the trial court in paras 2 to 4 in the impugned judgment, these paras are therefore reproduced as under:-

(3.) At this stage, it is required to be noted that against the appellants/defendants an ex-parte judgment and decree was earlier passed on 15.11.2011. This ex-parte judgment and decree however was set aside on an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in terms of an order dated 10.10.2013 whereby appellants/defendants were also granted opportunity to file the written statement. Inspite of this opportunity being granted, yet admittedly the appellants/defendants failed to file the written statement and therefore the right of the appellants/defendants to file written statement was closed vide order dated 20.2.2014. This order was challenged in appeal and challenge to that order was also dismissed in the Chamber Appeal of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2014. Further, appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants against the order dated 13.11.2014 was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.12.2014 in FAO(OS) No. 502/2014. Therefore, there is no written statement of the appellants/defendants on record nor is any evidence led on behalf of the appellants/defendants. On the other hand the respondent/plaintiff proved her case of ownership of the suit property by stepping into the witness box and proving all the requisite documents. Evidence was also led by the respondent/plaintiff that Smt. Subhash Rani, mother of the appellant no. 1/defendant no. 1 had received consideration for transfer of property by encashing a cheque of Rs.1,30,000/- paid from the bank account of Sh. Ram Harchandani and Smt. Sheela Harchandani. All these aspects with respect to evidence led by the respondent/plaintiff are stated in paras 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment and these paras read as under:-