Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. The subject suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction claiming ownership by adverse possession of the property admeasuring 100 sq. yds bearing no. WZ-140, Block-A, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Plaintiff does not claim to be the owner of this property by purchase but claims that he has become owner of the property under law of prescription as per para 5 of the plaint. Plaintiff pleads that the defendant no.3, with defendant nos.1 and 2 who are said to be unsocial elements, came to the suit property on 20.2.2006 and tried to take forcible possession of the suit property from the plaintiff but the plan of the defendants did not succeed. Defendant no.3 is the wife of Sh. Lal Singh Matharoo. Sh. Lal Singh Mathroo is the brother of the plaintiff i.e. defendant no.3 is the bhabhi of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleads that defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit property and therefore a declaration be granted that plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession and law of prescription under Articles 64 and 65 r/w Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession, enjoyment and proprietary rights existing in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property.

2. Defendants no.1 and 2 are really proforma parties because no rights are claimed by them in the suit property. It is the defendant no.3 who is claiming rights in the suit property and it is her defence with the evidence which has been led by her that will be material for disposing of the present suit. As per the written statement filed by defendant no.3, the suit property which is situated in Khasra No. 84, area of Village Hastsal in the abadi of Uttam Nagar, was originally owned by Sh. Gurbax Singh son of Sh. Sewa Singh. The total area of the property WZ-140 was 200 sq. yds and 100 sq. yds of this property WZ-140 being the suit property was firstly transferred by Sh. Gurbax Singh to Sh. Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. R.B. Verma in terms of the documents being the Indemnity Bond dated 26.3.1991, Receipt dated 26.3.1991, Will dated 27.3.1991, Affidavit dated 26.3.1991, an Agreement to Sell dated 26.3.1991 and General Power of Attorney dated 26.3.1991. These documents have been filed and proved as per the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the defendant no.3 as Ex.DW3/1 (colly). The documents exhibited as Ex. DW3/1(colly) also include further documentation dated 30.4.1991 by Sh. Rajesh Kumar to the husband of the defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 pleads that she purchased the suit property from her husband in terms of documentation dated 6.1.1994, and which documents have been filed and proved as Ex.DW3/2(colly). Defendant no.3 further as per her written statement pleads that her husband Sh. Lal Singh Matharoo was suffering from various diseases and she was living in Punjab and taking care of her husband and that the plaintiff has illegally tried to claim ownership and possession rights in the suit property. The defendant no.3 emphatically denies that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by adverse possession and law of prescription as claimed in the plaint.

3. The following issues were framed in the suit on 14.7.2008.

“1. Does the plaintiff prove entitlement to a decree of declaration that he is in continuous possession of the suit property i.e. WZ-140, Block-A, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, as alleged in the plaint. OPP

2. Do the defendants prove that the defendant no.3 is the lawful owner in respect of the said suit property? OPD

3. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief of injunction, as claimed? OPP

4. Relief.”

Issue No.2

4. Let me take up issue no.2 at the outset, inasmuch as, if the issue no.2 is proved in favour of the defendant no.3 then defendant no.3 will be held to be the owner of the suit property and the same will have bearing on the decision of issue no.1 with respect to claim of continuous possession and owne