CRP No. 45/2010

Page 1 of 14

*

HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

CRP No. 45/2010 & CM No. 4697/2010

%

Judgment reserved on: 16^th September, 2010

Judgment delivered on: 10^th November, 2010

Mrs. Sarvesh Kumari Yadav,

W/o Sh. Virender,

R/o H. No. 500, DDA Janta Flats,

Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi.

….Petitioner.

Through:

Mr. Ranjan Kumar and Mr.

Manoj Kumar, Advs.

Versus

Sh. H. C. Ahjua,

S/o Late Sh. G. D. Ahuja,

Flat No. 251, M. I. G. Suraj Apartments,

Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi.

….Respondent

Through:

Mr. M. L. Mahajan, Adv.

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

Yes

2010:DHC:5429

CRP No. 45/2010

Page 2 of 14

V.B.Gupta, J.

Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

(Defendant in the trial court) against judgment dated 24^th July, 2009

passed by Civil Judge, vide which suit under Section 6 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1963 (for short as „Act‟) for possession filed by respondent

(Plaintiff in the trial court) was decreed.

2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent purchased property

bearing no. 500, DDA Janta Flat, Ground Floor, Pul Prahaladpur, New

Delhi from its owner Sh. Jagdish Chander Mehandiratta for sale

consideration of Rs.75,000/- on 13^th August, 1996. The possession of

the said property was handed over to the respondent by its owner on

receipt of the whole of the sale consideration. The said owner

executed the possession letter showing the delivery of possession of

the said property to the respondent and also executed other documents

in favour of the respondent.

3. After purchase of the property, respondent has been letting out

the same to different tenants and ultimately got the same vacated in

2010:DHC:5429

CRP No. 45/2010

Page 3 of 14

December, 2000 and occupied it in January, 2001 and shifted his

house-hold goods and started living in the said house.

4. Respondent also owns another house at 251, MIG, Suraj

Apartments, Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi and shifted to that house in

order to get the suit property repaired. While respondent was living at

house no. 251, MIG Suraj Apartments, Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi,

he came to know on 29^th March, 2001 that petitioner has broken open

the lock and trespassed into the property. Immediately, respondent

lodged a report with the police.

5. It is further alleged that petitioner on the other hand, filed a

false suit against him and his wife to the effect that she (petitioner) has

purchased the said property from his wife for a sum of Rs.2,42,500/-

and have paid a sum of Rs.1,27,500/- on 10^th February, 2001 to his

wife.

6. It is stated that his wife has got nothing do with the property in

question and property is owned by him, which fact has been admitted

by petitioner in the suit filed by her. All the house-hold goods of

respondent are lying in the suit property. Thus, petitioner has illegally

2010:DHC:5429

CRP No. 45/2010

Page 4 of 14

tresspassed in to the suit property unauthorisedly, without any legal

right and as such respondent filed a suit for possession under Section 6

of the Act.

7. Petitioner in her written statement filed before the trial court has

taken preliminary objections that suit of respondent is devoid of any

cause of action and same is barred under Section 10 of the Code of

Civil Procedure (for short as „Code‟). Petitioner has already filed a

suit for injunction against respondent and his wife, which is p