J U D G M E N T

GAURANG KANTH, J.

CM No.15672/2017 (under Section 340 Cr.P.C.)

1. The aforementioned application was filed on behalf of the Appellants under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for initiation of action of perjury against the Respondent on the false statement given by the Respondent and recorded by this Hon'ble Court during the course of hearing on 23.03.2017. Vide order dated 26.04.2017, this Hon’ble Court had ordered the aforesaid application to be taken up at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The same has not been addressed by the learned counsel for the Appellants at the time when the final arguments were being advanced. In view of the same, the present application is being dismissed as not pressed.

RFA 793/2015

2. The case at hand is a regular first appeal which has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside and quash the judgment & decree dated 23.07.2015 passed by Shri Dr. T.R. Naval, District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS No. 506/2012 titled as Shri Vijay Ram vs. Shri Naresh &

Anr. (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”).

3. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the Respondent (Original Plaintiff) was held entitled to the relief of recovery of possession and permanent injunction. A decree of possession was passed directing the Appellants (Original Defendants) to vacate and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the property bearing No. G-179, Gali No. 11, 5th Pusta, Block-G, Sonia Vihar, Delhi measuring 50 square yards out of Khasra No. 387/391/1 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”) to the Respondent.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:

4. It is the case of the Respondent herein (original Plaintiff) that he purchased the Suit Property from one Mr. Deep Chand by virtue of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Possession Letter, all dated 21.01.2011. The Respondent alleged in the plaint that he had locked the premises and left for his native place and upon returning in the month of January 2012, he found that not only his articles were stolen but he also learnt that in his absence, Appellant Nos.1 & 2 (Original Defendant Nos.1 & 2) in collusion with one Mr. Braham Dutt, a property dealer, have trespassed over the Suit Property. It was further alleged by the Respondent in his plaint before the Trial Court that the Respondent asked the Appellants to remove their articles from the room but the Appellants extended threats as a result of which a complaint dated 25.02.2012 was filed with the local police and subsequently a criminal complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma was filed. It was also alleged that the Respondent put his own lock also on the main gate of the property. It was further alleged that a legal notice dated 08.02.2012 was also sent to the Appellants to which reply dated 15.02.2012 was received. Being aggrieved by the action of the Appellants, the Respondent had filed a Suit for Recovery of Possession and Permanent Injunction which resulted in the judgment which is being impugned in the present appeal.

5. The Appellants had filed written statement before the learned Trial Court claiming that Appellant No. l, on 07.02.2011, pursuant to an agreement to purchase the Suit Property with the Respondent for an amount of Rs.14,00,000/-, had paid an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- in cash to the Respondent in the presence of witnesses. Consequently, the Respondent had handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the Suit Property to Appellant No. l. It was further alleged that on 06.05.2011, when Appellant No. l asked the Respondent to execute necessary sale documents, the Respondent had given an excuse that the original documents of the Suit Property were lying with someone else as the Respondent had borrowed some loan against the documents and that he would execute documents of sale after he has the ability to clear the said loan amount. It was further