RADHEY SHYAM Vs. SUSHMA AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant by this petition seeks revision of the order dated 14.7.1988 of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendant against the order dated 3.11.1987 of the learend Sub Judge, by which order the defendant was restrained by means of a temporary injunction from interfering in certain portion of the property bearing No. 732-33 Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in occupation of the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff, now respondent before me, filed on 12 10.1987 a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant praying that the defendant be restrained from interfering in the portion of the property in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that Jagan Nath, her maternal grandfather, was the allottee of this property from the custodian of evacuee property. Jagan Nath died some time in 1961 leaving behind his widow Ram Kaur and his sons and daughters. Ram Kaur died in May 1985, but she was living alone in the suit property. As she was not keeping good health, she asked her daughter, mother of the plaintiff, to send the plaintiff to live with her. It was in 1975 and since then the plaintiff has been living with Ram Kumar, her maternal grandmother, as her family member. A brother of the plaintiff, stated to be deranged and by the name Parvesh Kumar, is also stated to have been living with Ram Kaur and the plaintiff in the suit property. Then the plaintiff alleged that Ram Kaur left a will dated 30.1.1.1984 whereby she bequeathed all her properties to the plaintiff including her rights in the suit property. The defendant became owner of whole of the property bearing No. 732-33, Faiz Road, and he got possession of various portions of the property and demolished the same with intent to make a new building. The defendant in July 1987 approached the plaintiff and offered her money to hand over the possession of the portion with her. She did not agree. On 7.10.1987, some labourers came to demolish the portion of the property in the possession of the plaintiff but on threat made by the plaintiff that she would call the police, they left. On the following day, the defendant visited the property in question and threatened the plaintiff that he would get possession by force. Apprehending that she might be forcibly dispossessed, the plaintiff filed the present suit. She also filed an application under Order 39. Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short 'the Code'), seeking an ad-interim ex-parte injunction. The learned Sub Judge, it appears, appointed a local commissioner to report if the portion of the property alleged by the plaintiff to be in her possession still existed at the site. The learned Sub- Judge did not grant any ex-parte injunction though he issued notice to the defendantforl5.10.1987. After perusing the report of the local commissioner, the learned Sub Judge directed maintenance of status quo regarding possession and construction. This was on 14.10.1987. Again, on 15.10.i987, at the instance of both the parties, another local commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises and to report about the existing situation/ position of the undemolished portion. This report of the second local commissoner is dated 16.10.1987, and in this he described that one room marked C-9 in the site plan prepared by the local commissioner and measuring 26' X 13.5' was intact while the other portions of the property had either been demolished or partially demolished.

(3.) The defendant filed his written statement. He stated that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit and that she neither had any right nor did she possess any portion of the property. The will of Ram Kaur was alleged to be of no effect as she herself had no right or title in suit premises. It was stated that the plaintiff was merely an unlawful squatter in front of the property and that suit was filed mala fide to extract and to fleece money from the defendant and it was an instance to blackmail the defendant by the plaintiff. It was stated that whole of the property was purchased by one Shri Rajinder Singh Bagga, also an occupant in a portion of the property, when his bid was accepted by, the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1934 (for short 'the Act'). There was some litigation by other bidders/occupants and it was in Letters Patent Appeal in this court that ultimately Rajender Singh Bagga succeeded. Then an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. Though the Supreme Court did not stay the operation of the judgment of the High Court but it directed stay of dispossession of the appellants on the condition of their continuing to deposit rent of their respective portions in the Supreme Court. Rajender Singh Bagga died in June 1981 and his sole ,hcirs, i.e. his widow and daughter, sold the property to M/s Ghawri Construction Udyog Ltd. and handed over peaceful and vacant physical possession of the property to the vendee, the company. The defendant happens to be a director of that company. It was stated that when the property was purchased by the company there no was occupant living in it and it was vacant, Then, it was stated that neither the plaintiff nor Ram Kaur was a party in the Supreme Court. As noted above, the plaintiff was alleged to be a squatter in front of the property. The assertion of the plaintiff that the was approached and offered some money was denied. Right of the company to demolish the suit property and make reconstruction was asserted. It was denied that the plaintiff was either living in the suit property or ever lived there.