Professional Documents
Culture Documents
...........Plaintiff
vs
1.
2.
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............2
3.
.............Defendants
p.t.o.............3
plaintiff
became
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
the
owner
of
corner
p.t.o.............4
p.t.o.............5
p.t.o.............6
p.t.o.............7
p.t.o.............8
p.t.o.............9
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............10
10
Plaintiff
permanent
injunction
to
restrain
the
p.t.o.............11
11
p.t.o.............12
12
p.t.o.............13
13
then the plaintiff alone can not be the sole owner and
can not claim the declaration of ownership in her favour
in the absence of other LRs on record of the case. As
such the suit is bad for non joinder of the other LRs of
Sh. Khem Chand.
20.Defendant no. 1 further objects that suit is devoid of
cause of action as in much as no specific dates, month
or year have been furnished by
the plaintiff .
under stamped.
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............14
14
22.Plaintiff has valued the suit for Rs. 3,00,000/- for the
purpose of recovery of possession whereas the market
value of said portion is more than 10 lakhs and
therefore, suit should be rejected U/O 7 Rule 11 CPC.
23.On the merit defendant no. 1 denied the ownership
right of Sh. Khem Chand and thus also of the plaintiff.
The defendant has even denied the averments
regarding the death of Khem Chand for want of
knowledge. He has completely denied the ownership
of quarter in question.
24.Defendant no. 1 has emphitically stated that portion
under occupation of Defendant no. 2 had been let out
to him by defendant no. 1 about 20 years ago and
wherein the defendant no. 2 running the business since
then.
25.It has also been denied that portion which has been let
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............15
15
p.t.o.............16
16
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............17
17
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............18
18
p.t.o.............19
19
plaint? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to a
decree for permanent injunction as
claimed in the plaint? OPP
9.
Relief.
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............20
20
Neelam
department
Arora,
MCD,
Architect
Kashmere
from
Gate,
Architecture
Delhi,
was
examined as PW4 and she proved letter dated 30-121986 as Ex. PW4/1 and standing plan of C-type,
Double Storey Tenaments which is exhibited as Ex.
PW4/2.
35.Defendant's in turn examined DW1 on his affidavit as
Ex. DW1/A, DW2 Nand Lal Satija was examined and
has proved his affidavit dated 09-11-2008 consisting of
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............21
21
which
they
not.
My
issue
wise
p.t.o.............22
22
defendants.
p.t.o.............23
23
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............24
24
p.t.o.............25
25
p.t.o.............26
26
of the property way back in the year 1971 and that she
had been residing there. How it is possible that plaintiff
had claimed in the plaint that she came to know only
recently that suit property had been sold out to
defendant no. 2 and 3 respectively only recently.
45.During her cross-examination , the plaintiff by her
admission,
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............27
27
p.t.o.............28
28
Issue No. 2 :
nor her
p.t.o.............29
29
p.t.o.............30
30
According to
Further
p.t.o.............31
31
p.t.o.............32
32
point.
54.I am in agreement with the contentions raised on
behalf of the defendants and find that the suit is indeed
bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, mainly, on
the ground that the fate of this suit would certainly
affect the original owner Shri Amar Nath Sharma, and
also L& DO to whom the property originally belongs
and also the children of deceased Shri Khem Chand
i.e. LR of the first category whose share they may be
deprived off by the plaintiff, without impleading them,
and without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
Issue no. 2 is also accordingly decided in favour of
the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3 :
OPD
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............33
33
55.The plaintiff has valued the suit for Rs. 3 lacs for
purpose of recovery of possession, but defendants
contend that the market value of the disputed portion at
the time of filing of the suit was more than Rs. 10 lacs.
However, the defendants have failed to lead any
evidence on this aspect and as onus to prove their
objection was upon the defendants, issue no. 3 is
decided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiff.
Issue No. 4 : Whether the suit for declaration and
possession is not maintainable as claimed by
defendants in their written statements? OPD
Issue No. 5 : Whether the plaintiff has no locus
standi to file the present suit against defendants?
OPD
56.Issue No. 4 and 5 are interdependent upon each other
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............34
34
p.t.o.............35
35
injunction.
60.The main relevant portion of her testimony in this
regard are necessary to be referred to herein.
Plaintiff /PW-1 admitted that no sale deed was
executed by Shri Amar Nath Sharma in the name of her
husband. She has admitted that she has four sons and
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............36
36
to title or suit
The documents
p.t.o.............37
37
the
conveyance
deed
and
other
title
p.t.o.............38
38
declaration,
possession
and
permanent
p.t.o.............39
39
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni
p.t.o.............