judgement lavatory block

1

IN THE COURT OF MS SUJATA KOHLI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CENTRAL DISTT. TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHICS No. 171/14/04 Unique ID No. 02401C05098562009

Mrs. Phoola WantiW/o late Shri Khem ChandR/o 3/48, Double Storey,Jangpura Extension,New Delhi-110014. …...........Plaintiff

vs

1. Shri Narinder Singh SahniS/o late Shri Thakur Singh SahniR/o 3/42-44,Double Storey, Jangpura ExtensionNew Delhi-110014.

2. Shri Nand Lal SatijaS/o Shri ParmanandProprietorM/s Krishna EmbroideryR/o 4/63, Double Storey,Jangpura Extensiion,New Delhi-110014.

CS No. 171/14/04Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni p.t.o.............2

2

3. Shri Badru KhanProprietorM/s Raj TailorR/o Block No. 28,House No. 23, Trilok Puri,Delhi-110091. ….............Defendants

SUIT FOR DECLARATIION, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF THE

PLAINTIFF.

Date of filing the suit : 05-05-2004Date of reserving the Judgment/Order : 14-07-2015Date of passing the Judgment/Order : 22-07-2015

JUDGME NT :

1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration,

possession and permanent injunction for quarter no.

3/46 and 3/48 Ground floor, Double Storyed Jangpura

Extn. New Delhi- 110 014, alleging therein, that by

lease and convayence deed executed on 13-11-1969,

Govt. of India transferred double storeyed quarter no.

3/46 and 3/48 to one Sh. Amar Nath Sharma son of Sh.


3

Shiv Nath, duly registered with the sub-registrar Delhi.

Sh. Amar Nath Sharma was the original owner of

quarter no. 3/46 and 3/48, Ground Floor, Double

Storeyed Jangpura Extn. New Delhi – 110 014.

2. The said Sh. Amar Nath Sharma, executed an

agreement to sell in favour of Sh. Khem Chand,

husband of the plaintiff, registered as document no.

2727 with the sub-registrar, Delhi on 2-8-1977. The

said Amar Nath Sharma also executed supporting

documents like General power of Attorney which is duly

registered on the same date. Thus Sh. Khem Chand

became the rightful owner of the aforesaid Quarter no.

3/48 ground floor, Double Storey, Jungpura Extn. New

Delhi.

3. It is further stated that the husband of the plaintiff Sh.

Khem Chand died on 20-10-1980 and after his death

the plaintiff became the owner of corner


4

quarter/tenement no. 3/48, Ground Floor, Double

Storey, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014.

4. Plaintiff further stated that Sh. Thakur Singh Sahani i.e.,

father of Defendant no. 1 was the owner of quarter no.

3/42 and 3/44 ground floor, double story, Jungpura

Extension, New Delhi – 110014. After his death his son

Sh. Narinder Singh Sahani defendant no. 1 became the

owner of the said two quarters.

5. Plaintiff has recently come to know that defendant no. 1

has illegally sold one of four latrine/bathroom to the

defendant no. 2 who has converted the same into shop

and is running M/s Krishna Embroidery in the said

latrine/bathroom which is a part of lavatory block which

was once common. The plaintiff has also came to

know that the defendant no. 1 has also illegally given

another latrine/bathroom to the defendant no. 3 on rent

who is running tailoring shop therein.


5

6. It is also been elaborated that other original allottees of

quarter/tenament 3/42 to 3/48 ground floor, double

story, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi – 110014 were issued

similar lease cum conveyance deed by the Govt. of

India.

7. As per arrangements, the plaintiff and defendant no. 1

are residing in double storey government built quarters

having 32 quarters on the ground floor and 32 quarters

on the first floor with common passage and stair case

as shown in the site plan. As per arrangement in the

scheme, initially there was common lavatory/bathroom

i.e., two laterines and two bathrooms which exists at

the corner of quarter/tenement i.e., quarter no. 3/48 of

the plaintiff and these were meant for use by four

quarter/tenement no. 3/48, 3/46, 3/44 and 3/42, The

common lavatory block is shown as red in the site plan

and the quarter /tenement of the plaintiff is shown in


6

yellow colour and of the defendant no. 1 is shown in

blue colour. The corner tenement was to share the

lavatory block alongwith three none corner allottees.

Similarly, the stair case, common court yard were also

common to all the allottees.

8. Due to passage of time and due to increase in the

number of family members of allottees/owners of the

quarters, the common lavatory block resulted in

extreme instantiation and great hardships and health

hazard to the residents of the quarters. The double

story corner quarter association took up the matter with

the Ministry of Rehabilitation, L&DO and the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi, as a result of which, L&DO

passed resolutions from time to time whereby it was

decided to allot 17.5' x 10.75' sq. ft. area to three non

corner allottees out of common court yard on the back

side, for the specific purpose of constructing separate

bathroom, laterine and kitchen. It was also decided to


7

give existing common lavatory block to the corner

allottee. However, two years period was given to the

non-corner allottees for construction of separate

bathroom, laterine and kitchen and thereafter the non-

corner allottees were to have no right whatsoever in the

existing lavatory portion, which was to exclusively vest

with the corner allottee i.e, plaintiff in this case.

9. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant no. 1 has already

constructed his separate laterine, bathroom and kitchen

as per scheme/resolution of L& DO; and L&DO is in the

process to execute supplementary lease deed with the

allottees in this regard.

10.Plaintiff alleged that corner allottee was given right to

demolish the lavatory block and to build separate unit

of kitchen, bathroom and laterine as per scheme. The

corner allotte was given right to demolish the lavatory

block and to build separate unit of kitchen, bathroom


8

and laterine as per scheme. Various letters, resolutions

including dated 18-11-1964, 27-5-1968, 20-11-1968,

22-4-70, 25-1-77, 11-11-83, 17-3-89, 30-11-1990 have

been passed in this regard.

11.It is further clarified that quarter no. 3/46 is owned by

the son of plaintiff and is a non corner quarter.

12.According to the plaintiff the plan as envisaged by the

said resolution of L&DO and MCD has been carried out

in fulll by non-corner allottees. L&DO vide several

letters have ordered to restore the possession of

original lavatory block to the corner allottee, but inspite

of construction of their separate unit of kitchen,

bathroom and laterine, defendant no. 1 does not desist

from using the common lavatory block. The plaintiff

has been requesting the defendant no. 1 not to use the

same but defendant no. 1 failed to comply with the

same.


9

13.Plaintiff has agreed that he had also been given right to

replace the existing lavatory block with new unit, but

defendant no. 1 is not allowing the plaintiff to execute

the same, even though the plaintiff has exclusive right

over the area.

14.Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant no. 1 has

illegally sold 1/4th portion of common lavatory block to

the defendant no. 2 who is running embriodery shop .

Similarly he has given another 1/4th portion of common

lavatory block to defendant no. 3 on rent and both

Defendant no. 2 & Defendant no. 3 are running their

respective shops. Defendant no. 1 has no right in the

said lavatory block either to sell or to let out to anyone.

Similarly, Defendant no. 2 & 3 also have no right to

occupy the said portion and to run their business

therefrom.


10

15.It is alleged that on 3-5-2004, the defendant no. 1

alongwith some anti-social elements came to the spot

to demolish the lavatory block portion. They told that

the non-corner allottees have decided to demolish and

extend the same in the front portion so that more space

and thereafter to sell the same as shops. Plaintiff

approached local police and MCD but they failed to

take any action against defendant in the year 2004.

16.The main relief sought by the plaintiff are:-

(i)Decree of declaration to be passed qua the suit

property belonged her to be the owner thereof.

(ii) Secondly direction to evict the 3 defendants from

half portion of common lavatory block adjoining quarter

no. 3/48, Double Story, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi.

(iii) For permanent injunction to restrain the

defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession


11

of the plaintiff and from demolishing, extending,

disposing or selling or alienating or hand over the

possession of the common lavatory block or porition

adjoining quarter no. 3/48, Double Story, Jangpura

Extn. New Delhi. As shown in the site plan and from

obstructing the plaintiff in replacing the said lavatory

block adjoining quarter no. 3/48, Double Storey,

Jangpura Extn. New Delhi.

17.Defendant no. 1 in his written submission has raised

objection firstly, that the suit is liable to dismissed, as it

is hopelessly time barred by limitation in as much as

the Limitation period for a suit for declaration or

injunction is 3 years and 12 years for a suit for

possession, if the plaintiff is the legal owner. Secondly,

defendant no. 1 also raised the objection that plaintiff is

not even the legal owner at all, and infact as per the

averments of the plaintiff itself, the Govt. has allotted

the property so Sh. Amar Nath Sharma and not to the


12

plaintiff or to her husband. Since going by the common

case of the plaintiff no sale deed was executed nor any

permission obtained from the Govt. by said Sh. Amar

Nath Sharma to transfer property to the plaintiff and at

any point of time. It has been more than 18 years

back, but admittedly, till date, no sale deed has ever

been executed in favour of Sh. Khem Chand or

anybody else. As per plaintiff he has no title or

ownership, hence plaintiff has no locus standi to file the

suit.

18.Further objection has been raised i.e., suit is bad for

non-joinder of necessary party as the government

agency L&DO has not been made party. Accordingly

the said issue should be dismissed.

19.Defendant no. 1 has further emphasised on the point

that husband of the plaintiff was not owner as per law,

and even if it is assumed that he was the owner, even


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 .

Particularly alleged resolutions were passed during the

entire period between 1964 to 1990, as such

averments in the plaint are absolutely vague and

frivelous.

21.Defendant has also objected that suit has not been

properly valued for the purpose of court fees and

jurisdiction. The suit is therefore under valued and

under stamped.


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


15

out is a part of common lavatory block as is being

alleged by the plaintiff.

26.Similarly, it has also been denied that any portion was

illegally given to defendant no. 2 and Defendant no. 3.

Defendant no. 3 is also tenant for the last more than 15

years.

27.It has not been denied that plaintiff and defendant no. 1

are residing in the quarter at Ground Floor and First

Floor as alleged by the plaintiff. It has not been denied

that there was common passage and stair case.

28.Defendant no. 1 denied the allegations that no space

has been left for corner allottee on the lavatory block as

alleged by the plaintiff. It has been submitted that even

otherwise the plaintiff is not the allottee and Sh. Amar

Nath Sharma is the allottee who could claim any right.

The version of defendant no. 1 is that all the allottees or


16

occupiers including the plaintiff have made their

bathroom/toilet etc., on the space outside their quarter

and therefore they can not claim any special right

against other persons.

29.It is also not been denied that defendant no. 1 and

other occupants of the quarter have made their

lavatory/bathroom long ago i.e., 12 years back.

30.Defendant no. 1 denied that any such space was given

to the non-corner allottes in the lavatory block or, they

were given right to demolish, hence there is no ground

as claimed by plaintiff. Defendant further denied any

such claim passed by L&DO or MCD etc. Defendant

no. 1 has also denied having forfeited his rights over

the common lavatory with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has

no right to, object to any construction or demolition as

alleged by defendant no. 1.


17

31.In the replication filed the plaintiff has denied the

version of the defendant no. 1 and re-iterated her own

as correct.

32.Defendant no. 2 in his written statement has also

stated that the suit is not maintainable, as the suit has

not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees

and jurisdiction and the market value at the time of

filing of suit for more than 10 lakhs. Similarly, regarding

claim of the plaintiff about her ownership, Plaintiff

according to them was never the owner and not in

possession of the said portion of the property in this

suit. Further plea of limitation has also been raised.

The WS of defendant no. 2 and even of Defendant no.

3 are more or less on the similar lines. They have also

taken the objection and almost adopted them as taken

by defendant no. 1. Replications were filed to the WS in

which plaintiff re-iterated her claim.


18

33.On the basis of pleadings following issues were framed

by the Predecessor vide proceeding dated 23-5-2005.

1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time? OPD

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

4. Whether the suit for declaration and possession is not maintainable or claimed by defendants in their written statement? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against defendants? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration as claimed in the plaint? OPP

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession as claimed in the


19

plaint? OPP

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to a decree for permanent injunction as claimed in the plaint? OPP

9. Relief.

34.In evidence, plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 on

her affidavit Ex. P1 and also she has relied upon the

documents referred as Ex. PW1/1 to 18 through her

affidavit. However documents exhibited as mark Ex.

PW1/19 to PW1/33 have been de-exhibited and these

are photo copies/secondary evidence.

Sh. Rajender Singh, employee of Land & Development

Office was examined as PW2 proved the lease deed

and conveyance deed alongwith site plan as Ex.

PW2/1 and PW2/2 , letter dated 30-11-1990 is Ex.

PW2/4, Letter dated 29-5-1986 is Ex. PW2/5, Letter

dated 31-1-1986 alongwith site plan are Ex. PW2/6 and


20

Ex. PW2/7, letter dated 20-12-1990 is Ex. PW2/8,

resolution dated 11-11-1983 is Ex. PW2/9.

Sh. Abhey Singh, Record Keeper, Secretary Office,

MCD, Town Hall, Delhi, was examined as PW3 and he

proved the resolution no. 312 dated 07-5-1970 is Ex.

PW3/1 and resolution no. 654 dated 27-4-1964 is Ex.

PW3/2.

Ms. Neelam Arora, Architect from Architecture

department MCD, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, was

examined as PW4 and she proved letter dated 30-12-

1986 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


21

8 pages which is Ex. DW2/A. DW3 Badlu Khan also

examined and has proved his affidavit dated 19-10-

2010 and the same is Ex. D3W1/1.

36.No oral arguments were addressed by either party

inspite of the fact that suit is already 11 years old.

Defendant had concluded his evidence way back on

31-5-2013 and matter had been listed for final

argument ever since 24-2-2013 but inspite of a period

of 2 years, numerous dates. No oral argument were

address on behalf of either party. Finally matter was

reserved for judgment extending liberty to file written

submission, which they not. My issue wise

observations are as under :

Issue No. 1 : Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is

barred by time? OPD

37.The onus to prove this objection lay upon the


22

defendants. It has been mainly contended in the

written arguments on behalf of defendant no. 1 that suit

is hopelessly barred by time and suit property was

admittedly in possession and enjoyment of defendant

no. 1 for more than 25 years, who had admittedly let

out the portion to defendant no. 2 about 20 years ago

and other portion to defendant no. 3 more than 15

years ago . The limitation period for a suit for

declaration or injunction is 3 years, while the period for

suit for possession (if the plaintiff is the legal owner) is

12 years , whereas the present suit has been filed after

24 years as per the own averments in the plaint.

38.Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that she became

owner in 1980 i.e. after the death of her husband and

therefore on the face of the averments made in the

plaint, suit is clearly barred by limitation .

39.Further contended on behalf of the defendants that


23

plaintiff in para 25 relating to the cause of action has

not even mentioned any dates at all since when the

defendants alleged to have been occupying the portion

in dispute. Plaintiff has mentioned several letters and

resolutions right from 1964 till 1990 without specifying

any dates whatsoever.

40.On that the plaintiff in his written arguments has

contended that defendant no. 1 has only raised the

objection but not led any evidence. Further, that the

plaintiff came to know the illegal act of defendant no. 1

on 03-05-2004 and also the fact that defendant no. 1

had illegally let out the portion to defendant no. 2 and 3

in January, 2004. The defendant no. 1 has not lead

any evidence that defendants no. 2 and 3 were given

possession several years back. Plaintiff has also

referred to the reply of DW-2 on his cross-examination

on this point.


24

41.However, going through the contentions of both parties

on this point, I am in agreement with the defendants, in

as much as going through the contents of the plaint, it

is quite clear that defendant no. 1 had already taken

possession, allegedly illegal, as per the plaintiff, many

many years back. The relevant portion of the plaint

needs to be referred to at this stage.

42.No doubt that in para 5 the plaintiff has made it look as

if the plaintiff “recently” came to know that defendant

no. 1 had illegally sold one portion to defendant no. 2

and let out the other portion in dispute to defendant no.

3 for running tailoring shop.

43.Firstly, it is not believable at all that the occupants of

the quarters who are living there since 1969 onwards

and in case of the plaintiff, even after the death of her

husband on 20-10-1980 she would not be knowing as

to what has been going on in the property in dispute. It


25

is not possible that an occupant whose husband is

alleged to be the rightful owner, his widow who claims

to have succeeded to him in interest, that she would

not be aware about the exact date when defendant no.

1 sold or otherwise let out the property in dispute to

other persons and the said persons started running

tailoring shop. It should be noted that any one can

make out, if a tailoring shop is being run, in a place

where there was a bathroom earlier. The change would

not go no unnoticed. This is the reason that plaintiff has

not been able to state any specific date , month or even

the year, when the defendant no. 1 is alleged to have

passed on the possession of the disputed portion to

defendants no. 2 and 3 and instead she has used an

evasive term through out like the word “recently”. It is

clear that plaintiff was throughout aware but slept over

for all these years with her silence/ acquaintance.

44.Plaintiff even admitted that she had taken possession


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, that defendant no. 2 and 3 are in

possession of suit property for the last 'about 6-7

years'. If she herself has admitted then to be in

possession for 'last 6-7 years', her use of the word

“recently” would be rendered a false statement in the

year 2004 when the suit was filed. Infact, she has even

admitted that it was agreed that possession of the suit

property had been given to defendant no. 2 not by

defendant no. 1 but by the father of defendant no. 1.

This would further imply that the period would revert

back to even more long ago than '6-7 years'.


27

46.Though the defendants did not lead any specific

evidence on this point, the onus had already shifted

upon the plaintiff in view of her own self contradictory

replies, given in the cross-examination regarding the

possession of defendants no. 2 and 3. Her further

vague statement, about her knowledge being 'recent'

as used in the plaint is to be discarded. Further, she

has even admitted that the portion in question was lying

vacant in the year 1980 and that she was not in

possession of the said portion. If she admits then

plaintiff would naturally know, as to who was in

possession right since 1980.

47.PW-1 has further even admitted that she used to get

her own 'Fall of sari' and 'picko' work is done from the

premises in question and saree fall and Piko” works

done from defendant no. 2. This would then imply

clearly a kind of acquiescence on part of the plaintiff to

the continued possession of the defendant no. 2.


28

48.Taking into totality the averments made in the plaint,

the admission of plaintiff in her own cross-examination

and using the test of preponderance of probability, it is

very clear that the plaintiff slept over a alleged right and

filed a suit seeking relief of declaration much beyond

three years prescribed by law , much beyond 12 years

prescribed for the relief of possession.

As such, Issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the

defendants and against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 2 : Whether the suit is bad for non

joinder of necessary parties? OPD

49.On this aspect, it has been mainly contended on behalf

of defendants, that according to documents filed by

plaintiff herself, the allotee from the government was

Shri Amarnath Sharma and not the plaintiff nor her


29

husband Shri Khemchand. According to own case of

the plaintiff, Shri Amarnath Sharma had executed an

agreement to sell with the plaintiff's husband and sale

deed was not executed even after getting permission

from the government. The sale permission had

admittedly been granted on or before 28-02-1986 i.e.

18 years ago to Shri Amarnath Sharma, but admittedly

no sale deed was ever executed in favour of the plaintiff

or in favour of her deceased husband. The agreement

to sell cannot confer ownership and as such the

plaintiff has no title or ownership documents in her

favour. The said Shri Amarnath Sharma who was the

lawful allottee from the government continued to be the

lawful owner and only he was entitled to claim any right

over the property.

50.Defendants have made reference to the relevant

portion of the testimony of PW-2, from the office of

L&DO, wherein he has admitted it is correct that lease /


30

conveyance deed which is Ex. PW-1/2 was executed in

favour of Shri Amarnath Sharma. He even admitted it

is correct, that today also the property continued to

stand in the name of Shri Amarnath Sharma and that

the said property was leasehold and not mutated in the

name of Shri Khemchand at any point of time. The said

witness even replied that no supplementary deed had

been executed in favour of Shri Amarnath Sharma or in

favour of Shri Khemchand or even in favour of plaintiff

for that matter at any point of time. According to

defendants, it is thus evident that the real owner

continued to be Shri Amarnath Sharma only, but he was

not even made a party to the suit and as such suit is

bad for non-joinder of necessary parties . Further

more, even the L& DO was not made a party.

51.On the same aspect, there has also been another

defence through the written arguments to the effect

that, even assuming the version of the plaintiff for a


31

moment i.e. Shri Khemchand had become the owner,

and after death of her husband, she had succeeded , in

that situation also since the plaintiff had children as

well, they also were LRs in the first category, and

plaintiff alone could not claim ownership as sole owner.

Therefore non joinder of other children i.e. four sons

and two daughters also made the suit bad for non-

joiner of necessary parties.

52.The plaintiff during her cross-examination admitted it

is correct, that no sale deed had been executed by Shri

Amar Nath in her husband’s name. She even admitted

that she had four sons and two daughter and that her

children had not executed any relinquishment deed in

her favour with respect to the suit property. Therefore,

going by their aspects also, the suit would be bad for

non-joinder of necessary parties.

53.Plaintiff has failed to address any arguments on this


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 : Whether the suit has not been

properly valued for the purposes of court fees and

jurisdiction? OPD


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


34

and it is appropriate to decide both these issues

together.

57.Defendants have raised the objection that suit is not

maintainable and also that plaintiff has no locus standi

to file the present suit. The main arguments advanced

on behalf of the defendants under these issues is that

since the original owner Shri Amar Nath Sharma has

not been made a party to the suit , no sale deed was

admittedly executed in favour of the plaintiff even after

18 years of grant of permission to the said Shri Amar

Nath Sharma to sell the property, the plaintiff cannot

have any locus standi to claim the decree of declaration

and possession as well as injunction. Infact , the suit

as filed by the plaintiff would not be maintainable for

want of locus standi.

58.The plaintiff's claim that her husband was the owner

and after the death of her husband in 1980, she


35

became the sole owner , stands proved false in the

face of her own documentary as well as oral evidence.

59.No doubt, the plaintiff has summoned the record from

L& DO to prove the conveyance deed in favour of Shri

Amar Nath Sharma, no doubt she also examined the

witness alongwith the record of the resolutions laying

down the scheme in question, but the main hurdle in

the way of the plaintiff to get relief is that she has not

been able to prove her own ownership rights at all and

in other words her locus standi to file the suit and to

claim the relief of declaration, possession and

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


36

two daughters. She admits that her children did not

execute any relinquishment deed in favour of the

plaintiff. Above all, apart from the documents brought

on record, no other documents have been executed by

the government at all in favour of the plaintiff or in

favour of her husband in respect of the suit property.

These admissions are more than sufficient to show that

plaintiff could not establish her right to title or suit

property as being claimed by her. The documents

come up on record are only in favour of Shri Amar Nath

Sharma and not in favour of Shri Khem Chand, the

deceased husband of plaintiff or in her own favour.

Infact, the plaintiff has admitted during further cross-

examination that she did not even know as to whether

the said Shri Amar Nath Sharma was dead or alive.

61.Though, plaintiff in her written arguments has claimed

that she has proved that she is the owner of the

property in dispute and referring to the documents Ex.


37

PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3; as rightly contended on behalf

of the defendants, as per the settled legal position

documents like agreement to sell and GPA cannot

confer any title upon the holder thereof. There is no

good explanation forthcoming from the plaintiff, even

inspite of being cross-examined on the point, that Shri

Amar Nath Sharma never executed any sale deed in

favour of Shri Khemchand, even though permission

had already been granted 18 years ago.

62.Proving the conveyance deed and other title

documents in favour of Shri Amarnath Sharma and

proving the resolution and scheme issued by L & DO

and MCD etc. would not be of help to the plaintiff, in so

far as the issue of the ownership rights and locus standi

of plaintiff herself are concerned. The plaintiff has

miserably failed to establish the ownership right of her

deceased husband Shri Khem Chand and therefore

question does not arise for the plaintiff to claim


38

ownership in the suit property.

Issue no. 4 and 5 are accordingly decided against

the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

Issue No. 6 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a

decree for declaration as claimed in the plaint ?

OPP


decree for possession as claimed in the plaint ?

OPP


decree for permanent injunction as claimed in the

plaint ? OPP

63.These three issues relate to the entitlement of the

plaintiff declaration, possession and permanent

injunction. In view of the findings on issue no. 4 and 5

above, the plaintiff is obviously not entitled to any of the


39

three reliefs as claimed.

Accordingly, issue no. 6, 7 and 8 are also decided

against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

Relief :

In view of the findings on above issues, the suit is

dismissed.

No orders as to costs.

Decree Sheet be prepared.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open courton the day of 27th July, 2015

SUJATA KOHLIAdditional District Judge,Central District.

CS No. 171/14/04Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni p.t.o.............

Documents

judgement lavatory block