DEVENDER KUMAR Vs. RAJINDER SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJINDER Singh Yadav filed suit for permanent injunction against Devender Kumar Yadav, his wife Kamlesh Yadav and son Mahesh Yadav restraining them from interfering with his possession of plot ABCD and from interfering with the construction being raised by him thereon. It was alleged in the plaint that he purchased this plot from one Jai Dayal vide registered sale deed dated 31.7.1980. Since then, he has been continuously in possession of the plot as owner. Defendant Devender Kumar Yadav is the real maternal uncle of the plaintiff-Rajinder Singh Yadav. Apart from that they are married to two sisters, Smt. Kamlesh Yadav is the maternal aunt of the plaintiff, as also his sister-in-law i.e., his wife's sister. Mahesh Yadav is his cousin being his maternal uncle's son and Mahesh Yadav is his nephew being his sister-in-law's son. While constructing their house, defendants had borrowed Rs. 30,000/- from the plaintiff. Out of that amount, defendant Devender Kumar Yadav had repaid him Rs. 22,000/- Rs. 8,000/- was still outstanding against Devender Kumar Yadav. Plaintiff wants to raise construction on this plot ABCD, which the defendants do not want him to do because of strained relations between them, reason being non-return of Rs. 8,000/- by defendant No. 1 to him (Rajinder Singh Yadav).

(2.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that the so called sale deed was only a benami transaction. Plaintiff never paid any consideration for the sale deed nor was he present at the time of registration of the sale deed. Plaintiff is a near relation of the defendants. As such, only the plaintiff's name was incorporated in the sale deed. Defendants have raised the house on this plot at huge expense. Defendants have been in possession since the day of purchase.

(3.) VIDE order dated 20.8.1999, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rewari declined this application for amendment of the written statement. While declining this application for amendment, it was inter alia observed by the Civil Judge that in the moving of this application for amendment, there was delay of more than 7 years.