MAHABIR PARSAD Vs. LALIT KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Mahabir Parsad had brought a suit against defendants - Lalit Kumar and Yudhister Kumar - both real brothers, seeking grant of permanent injunction, restraining defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property and dispossessing him there from.

(2.) As per version of the plaintiff, he is owner in possession of the house, which is part and parcel of plot No. 88 B having total area of 300 sq. yards, constructed over an area of 120 sq. yards. The land is comprised in Khewat No. 650/1089, Rect. No. 20 Killa No. 5(8-0), 6(7-9), situated in the revenue estate of village Gaunchi. The plaintiff has been paying house tax qua the said property and in Municipal record it appears at No. 1354 and in ration card its number is 982. The plaintiff had purchased the plot measuring 120 sq. yards from defendants, as defendant No.2 is General Power of Attorney of original owner namely, Raj Kumar s/o Bishamber Dass, resident of Faridabad. Defendant No.1 entered into an agreement on 25/3/1996, as defendant No.2 was only a symbolic owner. The total consideration amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants and only formal sale deed was to be executed. Defendant No.1 had admitted this fact in compromise dtd. 27/12/2005, which was arrived at in premises of CIA Staff-Ill, Faridabad. Formal sale deed could not be got executed due to the ban imposed by the Government. Of the late, respondents were bent upon to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, which had given rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to file the present suit.

(3.) On notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit, raising preliminary objections, to wit that the suit was not maintainable; that no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit; that plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit; that the suit was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that according to the defendants original owner of the suit property was Raj Kumar Sharma s/o Bishamber Dass Sharma, a resident of Faridabad, who had not been impleaded as a defendant and defendant No.2 was neither necessary nor proper party, since he had neither executed any agreement nor handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff had filed the suit with a view to safeguard himself from the law since as on 9/12/2001 he was found to be in arrears of Rs.43,950.00with regard to the loan amount obtained by him from M/s Pick 'N' Move Finance Private Ltd., Faridabad. On being asked to clear the arrears, he had submitted an application to the police authorities, taking false pleas. That application was entrusted to CIA-II Staff. Defendant No.1 was summoned there. He was mal treated and misbehaved by the police authorities and forced to get the matter settled under threat and coercion. Defendant No.1 was compelled to put his signatures on a writing shown as 'Bahmi Faisla1 dtd. 27/12/2006. However, that agreement is illegal. That document was a result of fraud, cheating, coercion, pressure and ineffective qua rights of defendant No.1. As a matter of fact, defendants had not delivered possession of plot No. 88-B to the plaintiff. Hence question of possession of house over said plot did not arise. The boundaries of the house given are also wrong. Only foundation upto D.P.C. level had been filled up in the plot and no construction in the form of room, latrine, bathroom etc. was there. Remaining assertions in the plaint were controverted, with a prayer for dismissal of the suit.