DEVKI KUSHWAH Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision, under Sec. 115 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 27/8/2016 passed by III Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2010, by which the suit filed by plaintiff under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present civil revision, in short, are that the plaintiff/applicant filed a suit under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act for multiple reliefs, including the recovery of possession and mesne profits. It was the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 was the owner and in possession of a house situated in Karwari Mohalla, Hem Singh Ki Parade, Lashkar, Gwalior, having building No. 35/102 (old). On 4/3/2005, a registered sale deed was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, and in order to avoid any controversy, the signatures of defendants No. 2 to 4 were obtained as consenters. The entire consideration amount was paid, and possession of the disputed property along with rights was transferred to the plaintiff. By amendment, it was pleaded that on 11/3/2005, the documents were presented for execution of sale deed and sale deed was executed on 14/3/2005. It is the case of the plaintiff that after obtaining permission, she was intending to construct a new house and accordingly it was agreed upon between the parties that defendant No. 1, after demolishing the house situated on the land in dispute, would alienate the open plot. The defendant had demanded ?500 towards the demolition cost, and the said amount was also paid and in order to demolish the building, labourers were also hired by the defendant, and it was assured by defendant No. 1 that at the time of registration of the sale deed, the entire construction shall be removed and the property would remain as open land. Accordingly, defendant No. 1 proposed the draft sale deed along with the map, in which the property in dispute was shown as open land. However, after the sale deed, the key of the disputed property was also handed over to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff went to the spot along with the Registrar, then it was found that defendant No. 1 had not removed the debris which were lying on the spot, and accordingly, the Sub-Registrar, after charging an additional stamp duty of ?9,288, executed/registered the sale deed, as a result, the plaintiff was also required to bear additional financial liabilities. If the defendant No. 1 had removed the debris as per his assurance, then the plaintiff was not required to bear the additional stamp duty of ?9,288. The key of the disputed building and possession of the plot were handed over to the plaintiff on 11/3/2005. After taking possession, the plaintiff not only took possession of the building but also put her locks and shifted to the disputed building on 11/3/2005 itself along with her family members for residential purposes. On 14/3/2005 at about 6:00 p.m., defendants No. 1 to 4, along with some anti-social elements, came to the disputed property and by show of weapons insisted that the plaintiff should hand over the vacant possession. When the plaintiff did not vacate the premises and did not hand over the vacant possession of the property, then all the aggressors started assaulting the plaintiff, and the TV, table fans, as well as other household articles including cash of ?5,000, were looted. The locks were broken. The plaintiff tried to lodge an FIR, but under the political pressure of the defendants, the FIR was not lodged and, accordingly, the complaint was sent by registered post and under certificate of posting. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit for the following reliefs:

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement and denied the execution of the sale deed. It was alleged that the house which was in ownership and possession of defendant No. 1 was never sold to the plaintiff. The boundaries had been wrongly mentioned. No sale deed was executed on 4/3/2005. No consideration amount was received by the defendant. It was pleaded that after the death of Khubi Singh, the property went to the sister of Mahendra Singh/defendant No. 1, and as per the family partition, she is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has got the document executed fraudulently.