CHAMAN SINGH Vs. DEV PRAKASH GOEL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to impugn the order dated 18.01.2010 by which the suit filed by the petitioner under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the suit property was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for possession under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, damages and permanent injunction for the suit property being 100 sq. yards of land, Plot No. 20-21 in Khasra No. 39-8/2, 39/7-4 of the Revenue Part, 25 Foota Road in the abadi of Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094. The petitioner/plaintiff claims title to the suit property by a long chain of transactions. It is pleaded that the property originally belonged to Sh. Gurdayal Singh, the bhumidar who was the owner of the land total measuring 11 Bighas situated at village Karawal Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi. Sh. Gurdayal Singh appointed one Sh. Kallu as his attorney through irrevocable general power of attorney who carved out a colony and sold the said the suit property being plot No. 20 & 21 to Sh. Virender Kumar and Sh.Pawan Kumar Arora by a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1974. The said Sh. Virender Kumar and Sh. Pawan Kumar Arora sold the property to one Sh. Sunil Kumar. Sh. Sunil Kumar thereafter sold the property one Sh.Jagroop Singh. The plaintiff purchased the said plot from Sh. Jagroop Singh on 26.09.2001. The documents which are said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff include Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, etc. which are said to be duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. It is pleaded that possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner/plaintiff. When the petitioner/plaintiff purchased the suit land, there was only one room in the plot. It is further pleaded that shortly thereafter the respondents/defendants came to the site along with their associates on 01.10.2001 and 02.10.2001 and tried to enter into the suit property claiming the property as their own. However, it is pleaded that the defendants/respondents did not succeed in taking over possession. It is stated that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 has good connections with the police and in connivance with the police, a kalandra under Sec. 145 Crimial P.C. was got registered. It is further pleaded that the respondents/defendants came along with police on 26.04.2002 with their associates and put building construction material near the site for purpose of construction. On 27.04.2002, it is stated that the defendants/respondents in connivance with the police dispossessed the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property without the petitioner's consent and otherwise, against the due process of law. Thereafter, the respondents/defendants started constructions on the property. It is claimed that the police is in connivance with the respondents/ defendants. Hence this suit.

(3.) It is also stated in the plaint that Sh. Jagroop Singh from whom the petitioner/plaintiff had purchased the land filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents herein which is said to be pending before the Civil Judge, Delhi. In that suit, the respondent No. 1, in his written statement claims that respondent No.1/defendant No. 1 is the owner of a land which is known as Plot No. 32-31, Rama Garden, Gali No. 2, Delhi. It is stated that as there was a dispute regarding the land, the court hearing the said suit filed by Sh. Jagroop Singh appointed Tehsildar, Seelampur as a Local Commissioner with the directions to demarcate the suit property. The Local Commissioner gave his report that plot in question (presumably of Sh. Jagroop Singh ) falls in different khasra no., namely, 39/4 which is not the same khasra number in which the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 is having the plot.