SUDHIR BALA SARINE Vs. BHACHHA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff claiming to be the absolute owner and in possession of one-half portion of plot of land measuring 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas bearing khasra No.247 situated in village Khanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (now renumbered and known as 66, East Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi, Rs. in short the suit property') by virtue of a sale deed dated 28th November, 1979 duly executed in her favour and registered on the same date. It is claimed that in the year 1980 the plaintiff and her husband got a 8 feet high brick boundary wall constructed all around the aforesaid plot of land and also two separate metal gates installed of about 10 feet and 3 feet in width and constructed one room admeasuring 209 sq.ft. with temporary structure for toilet/bathroom, septic tank etc., which was later renovated and the aforesaid one room was converted into two rooms wherein the plaintiff and her husband stored many of their belongings including furniture, almirahs, electronic, electrical and hardware.

(2.) The plaintiff has been in continuous physical possession of suit property since the date of purchase and the electricity connection has been installed in her name. The plaintiff has been continuously paying the property tax and is in actual physical possession of entire one-half portion of the suit property i.e. 66, East Avenue, Sainik Farm. The plaintiff and her husband were earlier non-resident Indians and came back to India to finally settle down in 2008 and are presently residing in Greater Kailash Part II in a rented accommodation.

(3.) Defendant No.1 was engaged by the plaintiff and her husband to clean the suit property once a month on part-time basis. Defendant No.2 and 3 i.e. sons of defendant No.1 who are gainfully employed also started residing with defendant No.1 in one of the rooms without payment of any charges illegally and unauthorizedly. In the year 2013 the defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff and her husband to use the said two rooms and toilet/ bath and assured that he will maintain and guard the property as Chowkidars and will vacate the rooms as and when directed by the plaintiff and her husband. The keys of the locks of the main gate and small gate of the suit property are with the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was permitted ingress and egress to the two rooms by the plaintiff through the small gate only on the basis of the duplicate key. Plaintiff and her husband have been regularly visiting, spending time and using one-half portion of the suit property including the two rooms and as a matter of abundant caution this arrangement was formalized by executing a license deed dated 5th November, 2013. As per the license deed no payment was to be made except the electricity charges as per the meter were to be paid by the defendants, and it was the responsibility of the defendants to take care of the demised property as Chowkidars.