IMPORTANT POINT
If admissions are such that further trial is not necessary, court is entitled to pass a decree without requiring further trial.

I.A.No. 3453/2014 (Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by defendant no.6)

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.—This is an application moved by the defendant no.6 in the suit, one Sh. Raj Kumar Bhatara. Defendant no.6/applicant was not an original party to the suit but he was added as defendant no.6 in the suit vide Order dated 22.5.2013 of a Division Bench of this Court in RFA(OS) No. 42/2013. It may be noted that the suit was originally dismissed for non-prosecution and by the Order dated 22.5.2013 the suit was restored and by the same order the applicant/defendant no.6 was made as a party to the suit on the ground that defendant no.6/applicant claims to be a bona fide purchaser for value of the suit property. The suit property is the property bearing no.18/50, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi having an area of 86.7 sq. yds.

2. In the subject suit originally there were a total of five defendants. Defendant no.1 is the Union of India. Defendant no.2 is the Land and Development Office of the Union of India. Defendant no.3 is one Sh. Gopi Chand. Defendant no.4 is one Smt. Sunita Wadhwa, Defendant no.5 is Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Defendant no. 6 is Raj Kumar Bhatara, the applicant. Defendant nos. 3, 4 and 6 represent the same interest inasmuch as defendant no.3, Sh. Gopi Chand is said to have purchased the suit property from the plaintiff and thereafter sold the same to defendant no.4, Smt. Sunita Wadhwa and who thereafter further sold the same to the applicant/defendant no.6.

3. I may note that the subject suit is filed by the plaintiff, Smt. Seema Thakur not under her own signatures but the suit is filed through her attorney one Sh. Vijay Kapoor. Smt. Seema Thakur is stated to be settled abroad in the USA.

4. In the suit the plaintiff by virtue of various reliefs effectively wants declaration of her ownership with respect to the suit property and also possession thereof by evicting defendant nos.3, 4 and 6. The prayer clauses of the suit read as under:-

“1. the decree for declaring that the Agreement to Sale, General power of attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Will, Receipts/Affidavits and all the other documents alleged executed by the plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No.3 on 31.5.2004 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

2. the decree for declaring that the Conveyance deed dated 20.12.2004 executed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 at the instance and in favour of the Defendant No.3 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

3. the decree for declaring that the conversion of the suit property from lease hold to free hold done by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the instance and in favour of the Defendant No.3 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

4. the decree for declaring that the Mutation Order dated 31.3.2005 (bearing No.Tax/KBZ/2004-05) with respect to the suit property allowed by MCD at the instance and in favour of the Defendant No.3 and all the subsequent mutations with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

5. the decree for declaring that the Sale deed dated 22.5.2006 with respect to the suit property executed by Defendant No.3 in favour the Defendant No.4 and all the subsequent sale deeds, if any, with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,

6. the decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and a decree of eviction against the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or any