IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiating claims and providing specific evidence in property disputes, particularly in cases involving illegal possession and dispossession.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner in terms of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, who was the defendant before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred as the petitioner/defendant), assailing the Impugned Judgment dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-04, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (Trial Court) in suit bearing CS No. 936/2018, whereby suit of the respondent/plaintiff instituted on 08.06.2018 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963(Act), was decreed.

2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court was that the property bearing No. TA-33A/2, Tugalkabad Extension, New Delhi (Suit property) was originally owned by one Mr. Rampal, who died intestate and the right, title and interests in the same were inherited by his widow, two sons and three daughters. It was claimed that there was effected an oral family settlement amongst the legal heirs and consequent thereto, while the first floor of the suit property which has been in occupation of the petitioner/defendant, who is the wife of Mr. Hukum Singh S/o late Sh. Rampal, was left for intact, the rest of the property comprising of ground, second and third floor constructed on an area of 28 Sq. Yards was sold to her by the other legal heirs of deceased Rampal vide Sale documents viz., registered GPA, possession letter, receipt and Will dated 20.07.2011 registered on 23.07.2011 for a total consideration of Rs. 10,75,000/-.

3. It was stated that the petitioner/defendant joined with her husband and filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration against other legal heirs of the deceased Mr. Rampal besides her so as to get the sale documents executed by them in her favour as null & void, which was hotly contested and was eventually dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide judgment dated 10.01.2018. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner/defendant, who was having some matrimonial disputes with her husband started creating hurdles in her peaceful occupation of the suit property on the ground floor, second floor and third floor and it was alleged that she trespassed into her portions of the property by breaking open the locks on 02.06.2018 and took over illegal possession and control of the same. Therefore, she filed a suit under Section 6 of the Act seeking to reclaim the possession of the suit property.

4. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant inter alia raising preliminary objections that suit was bad for non-joinder of her husband, who was a necessary party and her stand was that suit property was a Coparcenary property inherited from her father-in-law Mr. Rampal, who died intestate; and that although he did die intestate it was claimed that her father-in-law had left behind several properties, which are described in paragraph (3) as under:-

"i. TA-25/A-2, Gali No. 1-2, Tuglakabad Extn., New Delhi 110 019 Area 50 Sq.Yds (Basement+Gr Floor) Presently under the possession of Mr. Goptal, Brother-in-law of Defendant.

ii. RZ-81/5, Gali No. 5, Tuglakabad Extn., New Delhi 110 019 Area 90 Sq.Yds. (3'd & 4th Floor) Presently under the possession of Mother-in-law & Sister-in-law (Ms. Poonam) of Defendant.

iii. RZ-517/24, Gali No. 24, Tuglakabad Extn., New Delhi 110 019 Area 50 Sq. Yds. (Basement+Ground+4 floors) Presently under the possession of Ms. Manju, Sister-in-law of Defendant.

iv. TA- , Gali No. 4, Tuglakabad Extn., New Delhi 110 019 Area 50 Sq.yds. Presently under the possession of Ms. Usha, Sister-in-law of Defendant."

5. She claimed that since she was having some marital discord with her husband, her in-laws were annoyed with her, and therefore, they executed forged and fabricated sale documents so as to transfer the right, title or interest in other portions of the property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and she claimed that she has always been in possession of the entire property in her o