NITIN MEHTA Vs. SURESH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present suit, Plaintiff seeks possession, mandatory injunction and mesne profits in respect of first floor of property bearing No. B-97, Defence Colony, New Delhi comprising of three bedroom, attached bathroom, drawing-dining room, kitchen and one room above the garage (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property").

(2.) The Plaintiff claims to be sole, legal and exclusive owner of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 is the maternal uncle; and Defendant No. 2 is maternal grandfather of the Plaintiff. No relief has been sought against Defendant No. 2, who has been arrayed as a pro-forma Defendant.

(3.) On 25th May 1953, as part of resettlement policy, a plot of land bearing no, B-97, Defence Colony, New Delhi admeasuring 271 sq mtrs., was allotted to proforma Defendant No. 2 on lease-basis by Ministry of Defence, Resettlement Section. Proforma Defendant No. 2 constructed a house on the said plot from his own funds by way of raising loan from Government of India. For this purpose, mortgage deed dated 16th September 1961 was executed. The loan was repaid and deed of re-conveyance was signed on 25th March 1971. The land was thereafter converted from leasehold to freehold on 12th March 1997. In 1994, Defendant No. 1 quoting strenuous financial conditions, requested Defendant No. 2 for permission to reside in the suit property. In this manner, Defendant No. 1, as a son, was granted a license to reside in the suit property, under an oral arrangement, purely as a permissive user. Defendant No. 1 time and again assured proforma Defendant No. 2 that he would vacate and handover the possession of the suit property immediately on demand being made by Defendant No. 2 and recognized his ownership and possessory rights in respect of the suit property. In the meantime, Defendant No. 2, out of love and affection, transferred all his rights, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff, vide registered gift deed dated 23rd May 2011, duly registered with the Sub Registrar vide registration No. 7618 in book No. 1, volume No. 11161 on pages No. 47 to 51 on 26th May 2011. Defendant No. 1 gained knowledge of the said transfer as he was informed about the same by Defendant No. 2 as well as the Plaintiff. In furtherance to the gift deed, Defendant No. 2 also executed in favour of the Plaintiff, an affidavit, thereby declaring that the Plaintiff can get the suit property mutated in his own name in the municipal records. During the course of time, behavior of Defendant No. 1 worsened and, as a result Defendant No. 2 requested him to leave the property and handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property. The request was declined and he kept dilly-dallying the matter on one pretext or the other and continues to be in possession of the suit property, save one room above the garage which has been rented out by the Plaintiff vide rent agreement dated 8th October 2011. Plaintiff as the legal owner of the suit property, has been requesting Defendant No. 1 to vacate the same but such requests have not yielded any favorable result. On the contrary, Defendant No. 1 has advanced threat to life and property of Defendant No. 2 and the Plaintiff.