BHAGWATI DEVI SHARMA Vs. BHAGWANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/02/2012 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 26/2011, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 20/05/2011, passed by 6th Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.62-A/2007, by which the suit filed by the appellant has been held to be not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondents/ defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(3.) It was the case of the appellant that the GDA had executed a lease deed dated 29/07/1992 in favour of defendant No.1. One of the conditions of lease was that the lease would be for a period of 30 years and the plot shall remain non-transferable for a period of 10 years. As the defendant No.1 was in need of money, therefore, on 22/03/1993, he executed an agreement to sell in favour of appellant after receiving the entire consideration amount of Rs.20,000/- and the possession of the plot was also handed over to the appellant. The original documents with regard to the land in dispute were also handed over to the appellant. The original lease deed which was executed in favour of the defendant No.1 was valid till 31st March, 2022. It was also agreed upon by the GDA that that after expiry of lease, the GDA would renew the lease twice for 30-30 years. The appellant after getting the possession, also started raising a construction, however, because of shortage of funds, the construction could not continue, but the building material belonging to the appellant is lying on the plot. As the land in dispute was not transferable for a period of 10 years from the date of execution of lease deed by GDA in favour of the defendant No.1, therefore, neither the appellant could get her name mutated in the revenue record nor the defendant no.1 extended any help. After expiry of 10 years, the appellant has moved an application before the GDA, which is still pending. It is submitted that now the intention of the defendant No.1 has changed and with the help of the defendant no.2, he is trying to forcibly take possession of the land in dispute. The defendant No.1 is working in a Security Agency and thus, he is having gun and other dangerous weapons and has contacts with the antisocial elements and thus, he is trying to transfer the plot in the name of defendant No.2 or in the name of anybody as nominated by the defendant No.2. On 10/07/2007, the defendants came to the disputed property and started throwing the building material lying on the plot. When the husband of the appellant objected to it, then they started quarelling with him and thereafter only after the intervention of some persons of the locality, they went back giving threat that they will take forcible possession of the plot. The defendants have also started denying title of the appellant, by saying that the plaintiff has not got her name mutated nor has obtained building permission and now, he would sell the property to the defendant No.2 or to anybody else.