Back
High Court Of Delhi
GIRDHARI LAL - Appellant
Versus
KAILASH CHANDER - Respondent
Suit 852 of 1983
Decided On : 12/01/1997
SALE DEED - VALIDITY - MENTAL CAPACITY - BURDEN OF PROOF - ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITATION - MESNE PROFITS - UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION - REMOVAL.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a plot of land, claiming to have purchased it from the first defendant by a sale deed in 1959. The defendants, including the first defendant's wife and son, contested the validity of the sale deed, alleging that the first defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the sale and that the suit was barred by limitation. They also claimed adverse possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first defendant had executed the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff and that it was a valid document. The court rejected the defendants' claim that the first defendant was of unsound mind, noting that he had appeared in court in other cases and had given evidence. The court also found that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the defendants had not shown how they had acquired title to the property by adverse possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favor of the plaintiff was valid. 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property. 4. Whether the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties. 5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sale deed was valid, as the first defendant had executed it while he was of sound mind. The court rejected the defendants' claim that the first defendant was of unsound mind, noting that he had appeared in court in other cases and had given evidence. 2. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the defendants had not shown how they had acquired title to the property by adverse possession. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property, as he had established his title to the property through the valid sale deed. 4. The court held that the suit was not bad for misjoinder of parties, as there was no misjoinder of parties. 5. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits from the date of the suit until the date of delivery of possession.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit and directed the defendants to hand over possession of the property to the plaintiff after removal of the superstructure within eight weeks. The court also directed the defendants to pay the plaintiff mesne profits from the date of the suit until the date of delivery of possession.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for possession of the plot measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing No. 165 (old) and 329 (New), part of Khasra No. 185/ 150, within the revenue estate of Village Garhi Jharia Maria, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, now known as Sant Nagar Colony against seven defendants. According to the plaintiff, the property was purchased from the first defendant by a sale deed dated 9. 2. 1959. The plot was lying vacant and Sant Nagar Colony was not an authorised one. In the year 1978 the plaintiff came to know that the Colony had been approved by the DDA and the owners of the plots were asked to pay development charges. Pursuant to the demand made by the DDA the plaintiff deposited a sun of Rs. 4,830. 00 towards development charges on 30. 12. 1978. In or about 1981 the plaintiff requested the 7th defendant Mr. Kuldeep Mahajan to look after the plot In the month of March / April, 1982 the plaintiff entered into an agreement for the sal of the plot in favour of defendants -. 5 to 7. The agreement was entered into on 30. 4. 1982 for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000. 00 After the execution of the agreement, the 5th defendant Mr. Raman Malhotra and the plaintiif went to the plot and found that defendants 1 to 4 had trespassed into the land. The matter was reported to the police at the Police Station, Lajpatnagar. Police took action u/sec. 107, Criminal Procedure Code Defendant No. I had filed a suit for injunction on 26. 5. 1982 in the lower Court. Defendants I to 4 are tress-passers. They have no right to be in possession of the property. The property is capable of fetching Rs. 500. 00 per month. The plaintiff issued notice to defendants I to 4 calling upon them to vacate the plot and to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 500. 00 per month. A reply was sent by defendants 1 to 4 containing false allegations. The plaintiff claims Rs. 6,500. 00 beingthe mesneprofits till30. 4. 1983. The plaint was presented on 25. 5. 1983. The plaintiff accordingly prays for decree of possession and inesne profits.
( 2 ) ON 28. 10. 1983 defendants 1 to 4 filed the written statement. According to the defendants I to 4, the suit is time barred. The defendants I to 4 have been in possession of the property for more than 26 years. The suit has been filed to harass the first defendant. The suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. This Court has no jurisdiction. The suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff has not paid Court fee for both the reliefs of possession and mesne profits. The sale deed is a forged and fabricated document. First defendant had already filed a Suit No. 361/82 in the file of Mr. S. M. Chopra, Sub-Judge, Delhi, titled as Kailash Chand, Krishna Kumari v. Girdhari Lal. The attesting witnesses are fictitious persons and even if there are signatures by attesting witnesses they are forged and fabricated. The possession is always with these defendants. The payment of Rs. 4,830. 00 to the DDA is false and the receipt, if any, is forged and fabricated. The other allegations in the written statement need not be recounted.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the replication traversing the allegations in the written statement filed by defendants I to 4 and it is wholly unnecessary to refer to them.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff has marked documents Exs. P. I to P. 14. Ex. P. 1 is the sale deed dated 9. 2. 1959. Ex. P. 2 is a receipt issued by the DDA dated 30. 12. 1978. Ex. P. 3 is the agreement between the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 7. Ex. P. 4 is the copy of the order passed by the SDM in the proceedings u/sec. 145, Criminal Procedure Code on 15. 4. 1983. Ex. P. 5 is the order dated 4. 9. 1989 by Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on a complaint filed by one Shashi Kant. Ex. P. 6 is the copy of the statement given by Mr. Kailash Chand in Suit No. 316/82 on the file of Shri Nand Kishore, Sub-Judge, Delhi. Ex. P. 7 is the copy of the statement of Mr. Kailash Chandmade on 30. 1. 1986insuitno. 316/ 82. Ex. P. 8 is the copy of the statement dated 16. 2.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
