VINOD KUMAR @ VINOD SINGH Vs. ZAKIR HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC') assails the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shahadara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in C.S.No.891/2017, whereby the respondent's/plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed under order XII rule 6 CPC on an admission made by the appellant/defendant.

(2.) The brief facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent's predecessors/original plaintiffs namely, Shakra Begum and Ravia, claimed to have purchased the property bearing no. 49 in Khasra No. 27/20, village Khureji Khas along with the superstructure thereof ('suit property') from one Mrs.Poonam Agarwal, by way of a registered sale deed dated 28.04.2008. The subject suit was instituted by them against the appellant No.1, who was an ex employee of the erstwhile owner, Mrs. Poonam Agarwal, and his wife Ms.Madhu Chauhan/appellant No.2. In the plaint it was claimed that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiffs were handed over the possession of the entire suit property, except one room where the leather bags of the erstwhile owner had been stored. It was further stated that though the symbolic possession of this room had also been handed over to the original plaintiffs, the actual possession thereof was to be handed over to them after the bags were removed by Mrs. Poonam Agarwal. The plaint further averred that the appellants/plaintiffs had illegally trespassed into the said room on 1.05.2008, whereafter they not only removed the goods of the plaintiff from the entire suit property with the help of the police officials, but also caused grievous injuries to them and tried to implicate them in false criminal cases.

(3.) The appellants filed their written statement opposing the suit, wherein it was firstly contended that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to prefer the suit as the registered sale deed dated 28.04.2008 executed in their favour by Mrs. Poonam Agarwal was a sham and bogus as she did not have any right or title in the suit property. The appellants claimed that they had in fact, already purchased the suit property on 17.08.2005 from one Mr.Gian Chand Bakarwal by way of a general power of attorney (GPA) after paying a sum of Rs.6 lakh to him as consideration. It was further claimed that the said Mr.Gian Chand Bakarwal had colluded with the respondent's husband, Mr.Lalit Kumar Aggarwal, to illegally eject the appellants from the property, by executing a fraudulent GPA in favour of the erstwhile owner Mrs. Poonam Agarwal, at the behest of her husband.