Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 29
CS SCJ 449/24
RAJIV GUPTA Vs. AMRIK SINGH
30.05.2024
At 3 p.m.
Present : Sh. Manish Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
1. Vide this order, this Court shall dispose off, application
filed by Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
seeking interim directions for restraining the defendants from
illegally encroaching the suit property i.e. plot measuring 450 Sq.
Yards in Khasra No.28/11 and 28/20/1 situated within Lal Dora
abadi of Village Mangol Pur Kalan, Delhi, as shown in red colour
in the site plan.
2. The brief facts of the case of plaintiff as stated in the
plaint are that the plaintiff alongwith co-owner Pawan had
purchased the suit property in the year 1996 from erstwhile
owner namely Sh. Kartar Singh by way of customary documents
i.e. registered GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell etc. It is stated that
the suit property was purchased in different parcels of land in a
manner that two portions of 168 Sq. Yards each were purchased
by the plaintiff and the remaining portion of 114 Sq. Yards was
purchased by co-owner Pawan. It is stated that since the suit
property was a vacant plot, a boundary wall was constructed and
that the defendants who were in occupation of adjacent plot
became greedy and tried to encroach the suit property. Hence,
the present has been filed.
Contd....P/2
- 2 -
-- 1 of 4 --
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants,
it is stated that the description of the suit property as given in the
documents filed by the plaintiff do not match with the property at
site. It is further stated that there is discrepancy in the title
documents placed on record by the plaintiff. It is further
submitted that Lal Dora of village Mangol Pur Kalan is situated
only in two khasra numbers i.e. 70/1/1 and 70/1/2 and apart from
this, no other portion of land is situated in Lal Dora abadi in the
said village. It is further stated that the entire land in Khasra
No.28/11 has already been acquired by DDA and that the plaintiff
has filed the present suit on the basis of false and fabricated
documents. With these submissions, it is prayed that the present
application be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused. I have considered
the submissions and gone through the record carefully.
5. The Plaintiff is required to prove the following three
ingredients under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC:-
i) to make out a prima facie case in his favour;
ii) the balance of convenience also lies in favour
of Plaintiff and
iii) irreparable loss and injury in case the
injunction is not granted.
6. In the present case, the suit property is a vacant plot
of land. The plaintiff is claiming himself to be the owner of the
suit property and has sought protection of his possession by way
of the present application. In order to establish prima facie case
in his favour, the plaintiff is required to show that he is the owner
Contd....P/3
- 3 -
-- 2 of 4 --
of the suit property as in cases of vacant land, possession goes
with ownership. Hence, in order to determine the possession of
the plaintiff over the suit property, his title documents are
required to be evaluated by this court. Perusal of the documents
filed by the plaintiff shows that in the first set of documents
executed for a portion of 168 Sq. Yards, the GPA has been
executed in favour of the plaintiff whereas the Will with respect
to the same portion has been executed in favour of Smt. Rajni
Gupta and the Receipt is in the name of Smt. Lalita Aggarwal.
Further, the Will annexed at page no.20 of the plaint shows that it
is stated to have been executed on 12.04.1996 whereas the
registration stamp bears the date of year 1995. Similarly, in the
second set of documents executed with respect to 168 Sq. Yards,
the GPA is in favour of plaintiff, the Will is in favour of Smt.
Lalita Aggarwal and Receipt is in the name of Smt. Rajni Gupta.
The plaintiff has not placed on record the documents of the
remaining portion of 114 Sq. Yards alleged to have been
purchased by Pawan. Further, there is nothing on record to
demarcate the abovesaid (168 Sq. Yards + 168 Sq. Yards) area of
land.
7. It is also pertinent to note that the defendants have
placed on record the information received under RTI as per
which, Khasra No.28/11 of village Mangol Pur Kalan has already
been acquired and its possession has been handed over to DDA
by LAC/L&B on 08.11.1982. Further, the defendants have also
placed on record the khatoni of village Mangol Puri Kalan as per
Contd....P/4
-- 3 of 4 --
- 4 -
which Abadi Deh is in Khasra No.70/1/1 and 70/1/2 only.
Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to show the existence of
prima facie case in his favour. In view thereof, application under
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
8. It is needless to mention that nothing stated herein
above shall tantamount to the expression of opinion on the merits
of the case.
Put up for framing of issues on 17.09.2024.
(NEHA MITTAL)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ
North-West, Rohini Courts
Delhi/30.05.2024
-- 4 of 4 --