* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ IA No.42/2008 in CS (OS) No.4/2008
Smt. Kanchan Bala Thukral & Anr. ......Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. H.D.
Sharma and Mr. J.K. Sharma, Advs.
Versus
Sh. Radheyshyam Malik & Ors. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv. for Defendants
No.2-4
Reserved on : October 27, 2009
Decided on : January 08, 2010
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. By this order I shall dispose of I.A. No.42/2008 filed by the
plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). The said
application for interim relief has been filed with the prayer that the
operation of the defendants’ complaint letter dated 19 th November, 2007
submitted by way of objection to the plaintiffs’ request for water
connection with respect to their property marked as Green 1, Green 2
CS (OS) No.4/2008 Page 1 of 6
and Green 3 measuring 600 sq. yds. at 41, Nazafgarh Road Industrial
Area, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit premises’) be
stayed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff No.1 has
claimed to be the owner and in possession of the suit premises. One
portion of the suit premises, i.e. Green 1 is under encroachment by a
legal entity by the name of M/s. Kapston Plastic, for which the plaintiffs
have filed CS (OS) No.2355/2007 in this Court. The plaintiffs
purchased the suit premises from M/s. SMD, a registered partnership
firm for a total consideration of Rs.7,05,000/- ( for portion Green 1 and
Green 3) and Rs.10,95,000/- (for portion Green 2) by virtue of sale
deeds registered as Document No.9800, Book No.1, Volume No.12640
pages 81 to 89, Document No.16198, Book No.1,Volume No.14097,
pages 133 to 141 and Document No.7501, Book No.1, Volume
No.14672 pages 30 to 38 with the Sub-Registrar, Janak Puri, New Delhi
on 31st March, 2005, 1st August, 2006 and 26th April, 2007 respectively.
3. The said M/s. SMD came into possession of the suit premises
(as part of the total 0.86 acres) by virtue of sale deed dated 24 th
February, 1975 between the DDA and itself. Defendant No.1 came into
possession of 900 sq. yds. of the total area at 41, Najafgarh Road
Industrial Area, New Delhi by coming to some agreement with M/s.
SMD. Both parties, i.e. the plaintiff No.1 as well as defendant No.1,
own their respective portions of the said property.
4. The dispute arose when the defendants caused a legal notice
dated 23rd April, 2007 to be delivered to the plaintiff No.1, which was
CS (OS) No.4/2008 Page 2 of 6
received by the said plaintiff in May, 2007 and reply to which was sent
on 1st June, 2007. As per the said notice, the defendants stated, inter
alia, that the plaintiffs were not owners but tenants of the suit premises
and that they paid rent to the defendant No.1 at the rate of Rs.50,000/-
per month.
5. Further, in and around November, 2007, the plaintiffs
applied for municipal water connection for the suit premises. In due
course of the said procedure, the plaintiffs came across a letter dated
19th November, 2007 sent by defendant No.1 to the concerned
authorities objecting to the issuance of the water connection to the
plaintiffs. The said act of the defendant No.1 in addition to the legal
notice dated 23rd April, 2007 are stated to be affecting the legal rights
of the plaintiffs with respect to their title and possession as regards the
suit premises. Thus, the present suit was filed for declaration of the
defendants’ acts with regard to the suit premises and their attempt to
label the plaintiffs as tenants thereof as illegal and false and further, to
restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ ownership
rights with regard to the same.
6. In the present application under consideration, the plaintiffs
have submitted that they are carrying on business activities in the suit
premises as production of goods is being carried out from the area
Green 2. Further, the defendants have been threatening to interfere
with the plaintiffs’ possession time and again, as is expressed in their
legal notice dated 23rd April, 2007 as well as letter dated 19 th November,
2007. In view of the facts, the plaintiffs have submitted that they have
CS (OS) No.4/2008 Page 3 of 6
made a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is in their
favour.
7. In their reply to the plaintiffs’ submissions, aside from
contending that the plaintiffs’ suit is barred by law, defendant Nos.2 to
4 have submitted that the plaintiffs are not the owners but the tenants
of the suit premises. Further, the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have submitted
that the sale deeds produced by the plaintiffs are forged and fabricated
documents, and have all been back dated in order to provide credence to
the plaintiffs’ story. In addition, the details of the cheques etc. as
mentioned in the agreements and the dates etc. as shown in the
documents are not only contradictory, but in fact do not even contain the
signatures of the first party.
8. The defendant No.1 has not filed the written statement nor
appeared before the Court on 27th October, 2009 and was proceeded ex-
parte.
9. As per the defendants, the entire property at 41, Najafgarh
Road Industrial Area, New Delhi was sold to Sh. Surjit Singh vide
agreement dated 16th February, 1948. Thereafter, the rights with
respect to the said property were transferred in favour of M/s. Tropical
Insurance Co. vide agreement dated 2nd February, 1950, being further
transferred in favour of Sardar Harnam Singh and Sardar Nirmal Singh
vide agreement dated 22nd November, 1950. The rights were then
transferred in favour of M/s. SMD vide agreement dated 13 th
September, 1953. Thereafter, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 have outlined the
contours of the entire history of the suit premises in paras 4 to 6. At
CS (OS) No.4/2008 Page 4 of 6
this stage, these submissions need not be discussed in detail as the relief
asked for in the interim application under consideration is very limited.
It appears that the defendant No.1, who is the husband of defendant
No.2 and father of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is now not appearing in the
matter and is making complaints despite having the knowledge that
prima facie the rights have been transferred in favour of the plaintiff by
virtue of the sale deed with regard to the suit property.
10. I have perused the submissions of both parties. In support of
his submission, the plaintiffs have referred three sale deeds which have
been mentioned in detail in para 2 of this order. Having seen the same,
prima facie I am of the view that the plaintiffs have made out a prima
facie case in their favour at this stage. The validity of the documents as
challenged by the defendants shall be considered at the appropriate time
as per their own merit.
11. As far as the letter issued by the defendants is concerned, in
view of the facts stated in the pleadings this court directs that the
operation of the defendants’ complaint letter dated 19 th November, 2007
submitted by way of opposition to the plaintiffs’ prayer for water
connection for their property described with marks Green 1, Green 2
and Green 3 is stayed, however, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to get the
water connection after the production of requisite documents as
required by the authority in accordance with law. The interim
application being I.A. No.42/2008 is disposed of with the aforesaid
direction.
CS (OS) No.4/2008 Page 5 of 6
CS (OS) No.4/2008
12. List the matter for framing of issues on 12 th April, 2010 when
the pending applications shall also be listed.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
JANUARY 08, 2010
sa.
CS (OS) No.4/2008 Page 6 of 6