Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ IA No.934/2012 in CS(OS) 696/2011
PRATAP SINGH & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate.
versus
RAM CHANDRA PATHAK & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Advocate.
% Date of Decision : July 05, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGMENT
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. The plaintiffs in the above mentioned suit have filed the present
application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure for passing of a decree of possession in their favour
and against the defendants in respect of two rooms, as per site plan
annexed of the property bearing No.752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, in view of the admissions made in the
pleadings and documents by the defendants.
2. Briefly delineated, the case of the plaintiffs as set out in the
plaint is that they are the owners of the property bearing No. 752-A
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 1 of 33
(South Side) measuring 210 Sq. Yds. situated at Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, having purchased the said property
vide Sale Deed dated 7.1.2011 from the absolute owners, namely,
Smt. Uma Devi, Sh. Sunil Saini, Sh. Anil Singh Saini, Sh. Vipin
Saini, Sh. Prashant Saini, Sh. Sanjeev Singh Saini, Smt. Pushpa Saini,
Sh. Mohit Saini, Sh. Keshav Saini, Mrs. Priti Saini, Sh. Shailender
Singh Saini, Sh. Ravinder Singh Saini, Sh. Bhalinder Singh Saini, Sh.
Kanwar Gopal Singh Saini, Sh. Rajinder Singh Saini, Sh. Yudhvir
Singh Saini and Sh. Surjit Singh Saini. The absolute owners had
given the suit property on rent to one M/s Vaishali International
having its office at Yashwant Place, New Delhi. The said M/s
Vaishali International earlier had its office at Defence Colony, New
Delhi and, therefore, utilized the suit property for the purpose of
residence of the drivers and other employees of the Company. M/s
Vaishali International ran into financial difficulties and surrendered
the tenancy of the suit property in favour of the erstwhile owners.
Though M/s Vaishali International ceased to be the tenant in the said
property and even called upon its employees to vacate the said
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 2 of 33
property, some of the employees started working for the erstwhile
owners and, therefore, stayed on as domestic help.
3. The plaintiffs entered into an Agreement to Sell with the
erstwhile owners of the property sometime in January, 2010. Since
the left over employees, who had stayed on as domestic help, were
using some rooms in the premises, the plaintiffs requested them to
vacate the premises. These employees demanded money to vacate
the property on the pretext that they had got some paint/polish done
in their respective rooms. The plaintiffs accordingly with a view to
resolve the dispute amicably agreed to reimburse the amount claimed
by them and entered into an oral settlement with them and made the
payment to them in accordance therewith. It is alleged in the plaint
that though all the other occupants left the premises and abided by the
settlement, the defendant No.1, Sh. Ram Chander Pathak turned
dishonest and refused to vacate the premises. The defendant No.1
was the driver in the Company, M/s Vaishali International. Initially,
he also agreed to vacate the premises and took part payment of
Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiffs. The balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
was to be paid on the defendant No.1 on his vacating the suit property.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 3 of 33
However, thereafter the defendant No.1 refused to vacate the
premises, though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay the
balance amount. The documents signed by the defendant No.1
evidencing the receipt of the amount from the plaintiffs have been
filed alongwith the plaint.
4. It is alleged in the plaint that during this period, the defendant
No.1 also brought one of his relations into one of the vacated rooms,
namely, Mr. Jagannath Mishra, and the latter was also made a party to
the settlement; and the plaintiffs were also coerced into paying the
money to the said Jagannath Mishra as well. The defendant no.1,
however, flatly refused to vacate the premises and he, since the date of
the purchase of the suit property, is an unauthorized occupant in the
property. The status of the defendant No.1 after termination of his
licence is, therefore, that of an illegal occupant and a trespasser. It is
alleged that the defendants are causing a lot of harassment to them
through their unauthorized occupation of the suit property and the
continuous complaints made by them against the plaintiffs before the
authorities. Hence, the present suit for possession, mandatory
injunction and mesne profits.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 4 of 33
5. In the present application under the provisions of Rule 6 of
Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs claim a decree
of possession, inter alia , on the following admissions made by the
defendants in their written statement:-
(i) Receipt dated 14.03.2010 duly signed by the
defendant No.1 and his wife, which is admitted
before this Court;
(ii) The statements of the defendant No.1, Shri Ram
Chandra Pathak and his wife, Gyanwati recorded
by the Court under the provisions of Order X of
the Code of Civil Procedure on 2.9.2011.
(iii) The Sale Deeds dated 7.1.2011 and 31.8.2010
executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Sainis
(the erstwhile owners).
(iv) The Assessment Order issued by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi after getting the same
verified from the revenue record.
(v) The admission made by the defendants in their
written statement that they have no ownership
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 5 of 33
rights in property bearing no.752-A, Sukhdev
Market, Kotla Mubark Pur, New Delhi.
(vi) The affidavits filed by Sh. Jagannath Mishra and
his wife Smt. Usha in this Court, [the sister and
brother-in-law of Smt. Gyanwati, (the wife of the
defendant no.1], who were also residing in the said
property, wherein they specifically stated that the
defendant and his wife only want to blackmail the
plaintiffs, and in fact they had vacated one room in
property bearing No.752-A, Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi on 22.04.2011.
(vii) Report dated 19.6.2010 of the Investigating
Officer.
(viii) Certificate dated 7.1.2011 executed by the Sainis
i.e. the erstwhile owners, specifically mentioning
that the defendants were in occupation of only two
rooms in the property, which had been sold to the
plaintiffs.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 6 of 33
(ix) Copy of the Vigilance Enquiry Report prepared by
Sh. Shriniwas Rajora, E.O. Inspector/Vigilance.
6. The aforesaid application, needless to state, is contested by the
defendant no.1, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs have been
making false averments from the very beginning and have filed the
Sale Deed in respect of property bearing No.752-A, Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi with the suit, which is situated at the
back side of the property bearing No. C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and there exists a brick wall between both
the properties. It is stated that intentionally and deliberately the
plaintiffs have shown the property bearing No. C-752, Sukhdev
Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi in the site plan filed with the
suit and not the actual property, that is, A-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. It is further stated that the application is
also liable to be dismissed because the defendant no.1 at no point of
time has admitted the case of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the
possession of the defendant No.1 and his family members is
continuous, peaceful and open for the last more than 30 years, which
is evident from the documents placed on record by them. It is
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 7 of 33
specifically denied that the defendant No.1 or his wife ever signed the
receipt dated 14.03.2010. It is stated that the alleged Vigilance
Enquiry Report was not impartial and had been submitted at the
instance of the plaintiffs. It is also stated that the signatures of the
defendant No.1 and his wife were obtained on blank papers and the
defendant no.1 never executed any receipt.
7. In the course of hearing, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, the counsel for
the plaintiffs, submitted that the admissions made by the defendants in
their written statement read with the documentary evidence on record
warrants the passing of a decree for possession under the provisions of
Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the outset, the
counsel referred to the receipt prepared by the daughter of the
defendant no.1 in her hand-writing dated 14.03.2010, the contents of
which are to the effect that the five tenants whose names are set out in
the receipt have each settled to vacate the premises on receipt of a
sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, that is, in all Rs.15,00,000/-; each has received
Rs.50,000/- and the balance of Rs.2,50,000/- (total Rs.12,50,000/-)
would be received by 30.05.2010 on vacating the premises. It is
further set out that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 8 of 33
between Surinder Singh son of Sh. Budh Singh and the five families
mentioned therein without any pressure or coercion and by mutual
agreement. The receipt purports to be signed by (1) Sh. Ram Kewal
Shukla and Prabhat Shukla (2) Ram Chander Pathak and Gyanwati
Devi (3) Neeraj kumar and Renu (4) Jagannath Mishra and Usha (5)
Chander Bhal Pandey and Anju Pandey.
8. Reference was next made by the counsel for the plaintiffs to the
statements of the defendant No.1 and his wife recorded by this Court,
which for the sake of ready reference are reproduced hereunder in
their entirety.
“Statement of Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak S/o Sh.
R.K.Pathak aged 49 years, R/o C-752, Sukhdev
Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi
On SA
I am residing at the premises no. C-752, Sukhdev
Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi since 1982. I
am unable to give the date or exact month when I came
to occupy the property. However, it may be either May
or June of 1982.
I am in occupation of only two rooms of the said plot.
There is a third room which is adjacent to these two
rooms which is not having any roof. I have stored my
belongings in this room. I am also occupying a kitchen,
bathroom and latrine.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 9 of 33
In 1982, I was employed as a peon with M/s East Coast
Board Builders & Engineers Ltd.
One Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj was living in these rooms
in 1982. He had permitted me to occupy these two
rooms in order to sustain myself. I was doing his sewa
and he permitted me to occupy the premises for this
reason.
I do not know who was the registered owner of the
premises. I believed that Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj was
the owner of the premises.
Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj started travelling in and out of
these premises. He lastly stayed in these premises in
the year 1985-86. I have never seen title documents of
the said property.
I have never paid any rent of these premises to any
person. I have never paid property tax with regard to
the said property. I have never written to the MCD or
any authority or any person that I am the owner of the
property which I was occupying. I have never claimed
that I am the owner of this property.
Other than an incident when Saini group objecting to
my occupation of the premises, no person has interfered
with my possession. I had lodged a police complaint
with regard to the harassment by the Saini group.
th
I have seen the original of the document dated 14
March, 2010 Exh. P-1. I deny the encircled portion at
point A-1 as my signatures. I normally sign in English
and the signatures are in Hindi however I can identify
the signatures of my wife who has signed this
document at point B-1 which is marked Exhibit P-1.
The plaintiff had obtained our signatures on a blank
page.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 10 of 33
Exh. P-1 contains the names and signatures of Sh.
Neeraj Kumar at point K-1; Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla at
point C-1; Sh. Jagannath Mishra at point D-1; Sh.
Chandra Bhan Pandey at point F-1; Renu at point L-1;
Usha at point H-1; Anju Pandey at point J-1; Sh.
Bhagwan Dass Pandey at point G-1 and Indrawati at
point E-1 who were also occupying different portions
of the property.
th
I have seen the receipt dated 14 March, 2010 Exh. P-
2 which contains my signatures at point A-2 ;
R.K.Shukla at point C-2; of Jagannath at point D-2 and
Indrawati at point E-2.
Usha is the wife of Sh. Jagannath Mishra. Anju Pandey
is the daughter of Sh. Chandra Bhan Pandey. Neeraj
Kumar is the son of Sh. Lurkhur Ram. Indrawati is the
wife of Sh. Chandra Bhan Pandey. The full name of
R.K.Shukla is Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla. Prabhat Shukla
is the son of Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla. All these persons
were earlier occupying other portions of the same
property.
I worked with M/s East Coast Board till the year 1990.
I started working as a driver since 1991 with Mr. Rajiv
Desai who has a public relations company.
M/s BSES removed the electricity meter from the
portion of the premises under my occupancy on the
pretext that there was some fault in the meter and the
same required to be changed. The meter was replaced
by the electricity company. Thereafter a raid was
conducted by the vigilance department of the electricity
company which concluded that there was a fake meter
and removed the same. The vigilance department of the
electricity company has verified the meter thereafter
and concluded that an error had been committed by its
officials.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 11 of 33
When the officials of the electricity company came to
re-install the meter, Surender and Virender beat up the
employees of the electricity company and did not permit
the installation of the meter. The meter could be
installed only with the assistance of the police . I claim
that I am occupying a portion of the property bearing
no. C-752, and not 752-A, only because Sh.
Ashutoshji Maharaj had told me that the property was
numbered in Sukhdev Market, New Delhi. I have no
official assignment or number of any document in this
regard.
The water and electricity connections were granted to
me based on my application and the information given
by me with regard to the details of the property
including its number.”
“Statement of Smt. Gyan wati W/o Sh. R.C.Pathak aged
47 years, R/o C-752, Sukhdev Nagar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi
On SA
I was married to the defendant no.1 about 32-33 years
ago in Delhi. I have been residing at the above address
throughout.
My brother-in-law (devar) Sh. Babu Lal Pathak with
his two children resides with us.
From my marriage to the defendant no.1, we were
blessed with three daughters and one son. Our eldest
daughter has since been married. My children are
educated.
th
I am educated up to the 5 class and can read Hindi. I
have seen the original of Exh. P-1 which bears my
signatures at point B-1. It also contains the
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 12 of 33
signatures of my husband at point A-1 which is
encircled. My husband and I had affixed our
signatures on a blank piece of paper. I do not know
who has written the document. My sister Smt. Usha has
signed at point H-1. I do not know when my sister has
put the signatures at point H-1. My sister and her
family was also residing on the same property.
We are occupying the rooms in the front of the
property. My sister Usha and her family were
occupying the last portion. Sh. Chander Bhan Pandey,
a friend of my husband came to occupy a portion of the
premises with his family. He had been given a room
adjacent to the room occupied by us. Sh. Jagannath
Mishra is the husband of my sister Usha. Sh. Neeraj
Kumar was working with my husband in Chanakyapuri.
He was living with his family in a jhuggi in Babu
Market. On account of inconvenience being faced by
Neeraj Kumar and his family on account of the ear
operation which his wife had undergone, my husband
had brought him also to a portion of the premises. Sh.
Ganga Prasad Mishra is the father of Sh. Jagannath
Mishra. He is therefore the father-in-law of my sister
Usha. Anju Pandey was the daughter of Sh. Chander
Bhan Pandey. Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla was living in a
jhuggi in Gautam Nagar. He has been allotted an
alternative accommodation against the jhuggi in
Gautam Puri near Sarita Vihar. However Sh. Ram
Kewal Shukla‟s wife was unwell and was being treated
at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences which is
near to our residence, for this reason we had permitted
him to stay with us and were helping him with the
treatment of his wife. Sh. Prabhat Shukla was the son
of Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla.
No rent was being paid by any person. They had been
living with us out of love and affection.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 13 of 33
I have met Sh. Ashutoshji Mahajan (sic: Maharaj) on
his visits to the suit premises. I have looked after him
and nursed him in his sickness. He had left the premises
about 4 or 5 days before the assassination of Smt.
Indira Gandhi. He has never come to the suit premises
again. I do not know who is the owner of the suit
premises.
In the year 1999, the Saini family members had told us
to vacate the suit premises failing which they would kill
us. I had lodged the complaint with the police by post
with regard to this incident. We do not own any other
property in Delhi.”
9. On the basis of the aforesaid statements, learned counsel
contended that the defendant No.1, not having denied the execution of
the receipts Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2 and having received a sum of
Rs.50,000/- in cash from the plaintiffs, had dishonestly backed out of
the settlement. It was further contended that it was evident from the
statements of the defendant no. 1 and his wife that they identify not
only their own signatures but also the signatures of the other
occupants on the receipts. Thus, Shri Ram Chandra Pathak admitted
that the receipt Exhibit P-1 contains the names and signatures of his
wife at point B-1 Sh. Neeraj Kumar at point K-1; Sh. Ram Kewal
Shukla at point C-1; Sh. Jagannath Mishra at point D-1; Sh. Chandra
Bhal Pandey at point F-1; Smt. Renu at point L-1; Smt. Usha at point
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 14 of 33
H-1; Smt. Anju Pandey at point J-1; Sh. Bhagwan Dass Pandey at
point G-1 and Indrawati at point E-1, who were also occupying
different portions of the property. He further admitted that the receipt
Exhibit P-2 contained his signature at point A-2; signature of R.K.
Shukla at point C-2; signature of Jagannath Mishra at point D-2 and
of Indrawati at point E-2. He also categorically admitted that all these
persons were earlier occupying different portions of the same property
and had since vacated the same. Smt. Gyanwati in her statement
recorded by this Court too admitted her signature on Exhibit P-1 at
point B-1 and those of her husband at point A-1 and those of her
sister, Smt. Usha at point H-1. She candidly stated that her sister and
her family had also been residing in the same property; that her sister
and her family were occupying the portion behind the front portion,
that is, the “last portion”; that Sh. Chander Bhan Pandey, a friend of
her husband’s, had also come to occupy a portion of the premises with
his family and had a room adjacent to theirs; that Sh. Jagannath
Mishra was the husband of her sister, Usha; that Sh. Neeraj Kumar,
who was working with her husband in Chanakyapuri was also
occupying a portion of the premises with his family; and that Shri
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 15 of 33
Ram Kewal Shukla had also been staying in the said premises with his
family.
10. Mr. Sandeep Sharma next referred to an affidavit of Shri
Jagannath Mishra, the brother-in-law of Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak,
whose wife Smt. Usha is admittedly the sister of the defendant No.2,
Smt. Gyanwati, wife of the defendant no.1. The relevant portion of
the said affidavit reads as under:
“1. That I and my family was misled by Sh. Ram Chandra
Pathak and his wife Smt. Gyanwati. In fact it is Sh. Ram
Chandra Pathak and Smt. Gyanwati who are dishonest
and want to illegally occupy the two rooms and blackmail
the plaintiffs for huge sum of money. In fact we were only
the licencee in the room and after it was terminated by the
plaintiffs orally we have been unauthorisedly occupying
the same.
2. I say that I have signed and taken a sum of Rs.
50,000/- in cash from the plaintiffs on 14.3.2010 and the
receipt of the same is enclosed with this affidavit. This
whole receipt was prepared by the daughter of Sh. Ram
Chandra Pathak who has also signed on the said page
and has in fact received a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the
same date. It is he who turned dishonest and used his
wife and daughter to black mail the plaintiffs. On the
same date another receipt was also executed between the
plaintiffs and myself and Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak.
The said receipt was signed by me, my wife Smt. Usha,
Ram Chandra Pathak and his wife.
3. I say that I have received the entire balance sum of
Rs.2.50 lacs and has vacated the premises today. A sum of
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 16 of 33
Rs.75,000/- has been paid vide cheque bearing No.
000004 dated 22.4.2011 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank
Ltd, M-3, South Extension-II, New Delhi and balance
Rs.1,75,000/- has been paid in cash to me. The
possession of the room has been handed over to the
plaintiffs and I have no right, title and interest in the said
property. In fact Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak or Smt.
Gyanwati also have no right, title and interest in the said
property as they are only occupying the same with the
sole intent to blackmail the plaintiffs and cheat them.
4. I say that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in
question in which I was illegally occupying one room
alongwith my family and also Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak is
occupying two rooms illegally and unauthorisedly. I have
handed over the possession of my room to the plaintiffs
including the common spaces.
5. I say that the number of the property is 752-A and not
C-752 as is being falsely claimed by Sh. Ram Chandra
Pathak and his wife.”
11. An affidavit on identical lines was also filed by Smt. Usha,
sister of Smt. Gyanwati and wife of Sh. Jagannath Mishra.
12. Mr. Sandeep Sharma also placed reliance on a Certificate dated
7.1.2011 issued by the erstwhile owners, Sh. Ravinder Singh Saini,
Sh. Bhalinder Singh Saini, Sh. Kanwar Gopal Singh Saini, Sh.
Rajinder Singh Saini, Sh. Yudhvir Singh Saini and Sh. Surjit Singh
Saini, which is reproduced in its entirety hereunder:-
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 17 of 33
“TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
The undersigned persons do hereby declare as under:-
That we were the erstwhile owners of Property bearing No.
752-A, measuring 210 sq. yds, Situated at Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi-110003.
That we have sold our share in the said property to S/Sh.
Pratap Singh, Trilok Chand Semwal and Surinder Singh
vide registered Sale Deed dated 07.01.2011 registered in the
S.R.Office, New Delhi.
That we had in part performance of the sale agreement
delivered the possession of substantial portion of the said
property and symbolic possession of the remaining portion
i.e. two rooms which was is possession of Sh. Ram Chandra
Pathak and his wife Smt. Gyano Devi alongwith their
children. Mrs. Gyano Devi who, at one time was a domestic
help working some of us and was in that capacity allowed to
occupy the said two room portion of the property as a
licensee.
That we had revoked the license and had asked her to
vacate the premises in her occupation before the execution
of sale deed dt. 07.01.2011 in favour of S/Sh. Pratap Singh,
Trilok Chand Semwal and Surinder Singh.
That Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak and his wife Smt. Gyano
Devi have been in illegal and unauthorized possession of
the portion of above said property.
(1) Yudhvir Singh Saini Sd/-
(2) Ravinder Singh Saini Sd/-
(3) Bhalinder Singh Saini Sd/-
(4) Kanwar Gopal Singh Sd/-
(5) Rajinder Singh Saini Sd/-
(6) Surjeet Singh Sd/-
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 18 of 33
13. To counter the submissions of Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Rana
Ranjit Singh, the counsel for the defendant no.1, principally
contended that the defendant and his family had been in continuous
possession of property bearing no. C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and occupying the same as owners by way
of adverse possession for the last more than 30 years. He relied upon
an insurance premium receipt, electricity bills, water bills, telephone
bills, house-tax receipts and award of the Labour Court in this regard.
He further contended that the plaintiffs had filed the site plan of
property bearing No.C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur,
New Delhi and not of property bearing No.A-752 Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, though the plaintiffs have nothing to
do with the property bearing No. C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the records, the Court is of the opinion that the undeniable
position is as follows:-
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 19 of 33
(i) The plaintiffs are the owners of the property
bearing No. 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi by virtue of Sale Deed
dated 7.1.2011, admeasuring 210 Sq. Yds. Prior
thereto, that is, on 31.08.2010, plaintiffs had
purchased land admeasuring 80 Sq. Yds. on the
north side of 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi by a separate Sale-Deed.
(ii) Both the aforesaid Sale-Deeds are executed in
favour of the plaintiffs by the erstwhile owners,
namely, Smt. Uma Devi, Sh. Sunil Saini, Sh. Anil
Singh Saini, Sh. Vipin Saini, Sh. Prashant Saini,
Sh. Sanjeev Singh Saini, Smt. Pushpa Saini, Sh.
Mohit Saini, Sh. Keshav Saini, Mrs. Priti Saini, Sh.
Shailender Singh Saini, Sh. Ravinder Singh Saini,
Sh. Bhalinder Singh Saini, Sh. Kanwar Gopal
Singh Saini, Sh. Rajinder Singh Saini, Sh. Yudhvir
Singh Saini and Sh. Surjit Singh Saini (for short
“the Saini Group”).
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 20 of 33
(iii) It is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs received
physical possession of a substantial portion of the
said property from the erstwhile (the Saini Group)
and symbolic possession of the remaining portion,
that is, two rooms, which were in the possession of
the defendant no.1 and his family, who were using
the said premises on a licence basis.
(iv) It also stands established from the record that four
other families, who were occupying a portion each
of the suit property vacated the same after
termination of their respective licence on receipt of
money from the plaintiffs in the sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- each.
15. The contention of the defendants that Receipts Exhibit P-1 and
P-2 were signed in blank by them is belied by a bare look at the
receipts, the originals whereof are on record. It is also on record that
those who were living in the suit premises as licencees of the
erstwhile owners (the Saini Group) have also not supported the case
of the plaintiffs. There is also on record the affidavit of the witness
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 21 of 33
to the receipts, namely, Sh. Bal Kishan to the effect that the
aforesaid receipts were executed in his presence. In the statements
of the defendant no.1 and his wife recorded before this Court, they
have identified the signatures of all the co-licencees on the aforesaid
receipts as also their own signatures. Thus, the question of the
receipts having been executed in blank does not arise.
16. The only two pleas raised in defence by the defendant no.1 in
the written statement are as follows:-
(i) that they are the owners of the property by virtue
of adverse possession;
(ii) that the property in question is C-752, Sukhdev
Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and not
752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New
Delhi.
17. In so far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, the
following details are missing in the written statement of the
defendants:-
(i) the initial nature of the possession of the defendant
no.1 and his wife;
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 22 of 33
(ii) the date on which the defendant no.1 and his wife
came into adverse possession;
(iii) whether the factum of such possession was known
to the real owner;
(iv) the period during which the aforesaid possession
continued; and
(v) whether it was open and undisturbed.
18. In view of the lack of material particulars in this regard, as
noted above, the statement of defendant No.1 and his wife were
recorded under the provisions of Order X of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In his statement, Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak, the defendant
No.1 stated that he was unable to give the date or exact month when
he came to occupy the property. However, it may be either May or
June of 1982. In 1982, he was employed as a peon with M/s East
Coast Board Builders & Engineers Limited. One Sh. Ashutoshji
Maharaj was living in those rooms in 1982. He had permitted
him (the defendant No.1) to occupy these rooms in order to
sustain himself. He was doing his sewa and, therefore, he
(Ashutoshji Maharaj) permitted him to occupy the premises for this
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 23 of 33
reason. He did not know who were the registered owners of the
premises. He believed that Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj was the owner of
the premises. Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj started travelling in and out of
these premises. He lastly stayed in these premises in the year 1985-
86.
19. In her statement, Smt. Gyanwati, wife of the defendant
no.1, on being asked by the Court about Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj,
stated that she had met Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj on his visits to the
suit premises. She had looked after him and nursed him in his
sickness. He had left the premises about 4 or 5 days before the
assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi and had never come to the
premises again. She did not know who was the owner of the suit
premises.
20. It deserves to be noticed at this juncture that there is no
reference in the written statement to Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj or
to any other person or to Shri Ashutoshji or anyone else having
allowed the defendants to occupy the two rooms in the suit
premises. The name of Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj emereged for the first
time when the statements of the defendants No.1 and his wife were
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 24 of 33
recorded by the Court under Order X of the Code, though the
defendants No.1 and 2 did not claim even then that Sh. Ashutoshji
Maharaj was at any point of time the owner of the premises and as
a matter of fact Smt. Gyanwati in her statement recorded by the Court
clearly stated that in the year 1999, the Saini family members (the
erstwhile owners) had told them to vacate the suit premises, failing
which the defendants would be killed by them. She had lodged the
complaint with the police with regard to this incident. The story of
Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj is, therefore, of no avail to the defendant
no.1. There is also no document in support of the plea of adverse
possession.
21. It is trite law that for a party to claim title by adverse
possession, he must plead and prove that he is not only in continuous
and uninterrupted possession for a period of 12 years or more but
such a possession set up by him was hostile to the real owner whose
title he denies by setting up such title in himself. It is, thus, not mere
physical possession or continuous possession which could vest any
right in the defendant no.1, but such continuous and uninterrupted
possession necessarily has to be adverse and hostile to the real owner.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 25 of 33
There is not a whisper in this regard in the written statement and the
necessary inference which arises is that the defendant no.1 and his
family were occupying two rooms in the suit premises as licencees of
the erstwhile owners, viz, the Saini Group, which licence stood
terminated as claimed by the plaintiffs and by the erstwhile owners.
22 . The only other plea sought to be raised by the defendants No.1
viz., that the property, which is occupied by the defendant no.1 is part
and parcel of the property bearing No.752-C, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, is also clearly untenable in the face of the
documentary evidence on record, inter alia , being the following
documents:
(i) the Sale Deeds dated 7.1.2011 and 31.8.2010 and
the site plan of the property, which is duly checked
and authenticated by the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi;
(ii) the Certificate issued by the Muncipal
Corportation of Delhi regarding mutation of the
property in favour of the plaintiffs, which
specifically shows that the property in question is
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 26 of 33
No.752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur,
New Delhi and not C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
(iii) Receipt dated 14.03.2010 mentions the address as
752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New
Delhi and not 752-C, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
(iv) The Assessment Order in respect of the suit
property, issued by the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi after getting the same verified from the
Revenue Record, which mentions the address as
A-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New
Delhi.
(v) The affidavits given by Sh.Jagannath Mishra and
his wife, Smt. Usha to the effect that the address of
the property was 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, and that they had vacated
one room on 24.02.2011 in the said property and,
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 27 of 33
now, two rooms in the said property were occupied
by the defendant No.1 and his wife.
(vi) The Certificate dated 7.1.2011 executed by the
erstwhile owners viz., the Saini Group, wherein it
is specifically mentioned that the defendant no.1
was in occupation of two rooms in the property
bearing No. 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
(vii) Affidavit of Sh. Bal Kishan, witness to the receipts
Exhibit P-1 and P-2, to the effect that the said
receipts were executed in his presence between the
plaintiffs and five families occupying the premises
bearing No.752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, and that at the time of the
execution of the receipts, no dispute was raised in
relation to the address of the property by anyone
including the defendants No.1 and his wife.
(viii) Complaint of Mr. Vikas Kumar from the office of
BSES to the SHO, Police Station Kotla Mubark
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 28 of 33
Pur, New Delhi with regard to heated argument and
scuffle between the plaintiffs and Smt. Gyanwati,
wife of the defendant no.1 when he went for the
installation of electricity meter at the premises
bearing No. 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
(ix) Status report dated 2.9.2011 of the Station House
Officer of the Police Station Kotla Mubark Pur,
New Delhi to the effect that registration of FIR No.
173/2011 under Section 323/341/34 IPC was done
against the plaintiffs on the complaint of BSES
staff, Mr. Yusuf Khan, wherein it is mentioned that
there is a civil dispute going on between the
plaintiffs and Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak, Pratap
Singh & Ors.; the plaintiffs claim the said plot to be
752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New
Delhi, whereas the defendants claim the same
property as C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 29 of 33
23. Then there is on record the Vigilance Enquiry Report
which was obtained on the complaint of the wife of defendant
No.1 that she was living in the property bearing No.C-752,
Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. The relevant
extract of the said Vigilance Report is extracted hereinbelow:
“That the enquiry revealed that Gyanwati and her
family members are residing in the property in
question, that is, mentioning her address as C-752,
Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi
for the last 30 to 32 years. Although, she is in
possession of Ration Card, Voter Card, Birth
Certificate and other documents as well as water
and electricity meter in her name, but such
documents can be prepared easily by fulfilling
mere formalities. She, however, does not have an
authentic document to establish her ownership
over the property in question. She has stated in
her statement that the said plot was given to her by
one Sh. Ashutosh. But, during discreet enquiry no
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 30 of 33
one has supported this fact. Moreover, no one has
described that any person by the name Ashutosh
ever resided in this property. On further
verification from the Revenue Record, it has been
found that there is no such person who is the
owner of above property. As per the Revenue
Record, there is no property bearing No.C-752,
Sukhdev Market, kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
Her claim is thus not authentic. ”
24. In the aforesaid Enquiry Report, it is further mentioned
that on 14.03.2010, an agreement was executed between Ram
Chandra Pathak, husband of Gyanwati and other persons and
Surender Singh (one of the partners of purchaser’s side) to
vacate the property in question after receiving the compromise
amount. It is further stated that Ram Chandra Pathak and
Gyanwati had signed this agreement and after a long time had
complained that they had signed upon the agreement by force .
At the risk of repetition, it may be reitereated at this juncture
that it was on the complaint of Smt. Gyanwati on 28.03.2011
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 31 of 33
that the aforesaid Vigilance Report was called from the higher
authorities.
25. The aforesaid facts clearly establish that the plea being set up
by the defendant no.1 that he is in possession of property bearing no.
C-752 and not 752-A is patently false and cannot be permitted to be
put on trial.
26. In a given situation, as in the instant case, admissions can be
inferred from the documents filed by the parties, the documents issued
by statutory authorities, the affidavits of those who were admittedly
involved in the transaction and the statements made by the parties
before the Court under Order X of the Code. Taken cumulatively, the
aforesaid, in the present case are sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to a
decree of possession against the defendant No.1 under the provisions
of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. As held by the Supreme Court in the
recent case of Karam Kapahi & Ors. Vs. M/s Lal Chand Public
Charitable Trust & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 2077, the scope and ambit of
the said provision is extremely wide. The relevant extract of the
judgment analyses the provision as follows:-
“If the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is compared with
order 12 Rule 6, it becomes clear that the provision of
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 32 of 33
Order 12 Rule 6 is wider in as much as the provision of
Order 12 Rule 1 is limited to admission by „pleading or
otherwise in writing‟ but in Order 12 Rule 6 the
expression „or otherwise‟ is much wider in view of the
words used therein namely: „admission of fact…….. either
in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing.
Keeping the width of this provision in mind this Court held that
under this rule admissions can be inferred from facts and
circumstances of the case.”
27. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer in the present application is
allowed and a decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiffs
and against the defendant no.1 in respect of two rooms as per site plan
annexed of the property bearing No. 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
28. The application stands disposed of accordingly. CS(OS)
696/2011 also stands disposed of.
REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGE
July 05, 2012
sk
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 33 of 33
+ IA No.934/2012 in CS(OS) 696/2011
PRATAP SINGH & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate.
versus
RAM CHANDRA PATHAK & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Advocate.
% Date of Decision : July 05, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGMENT
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. The plaintiffs in the above mentioned suit have filed the present
application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure for passing of a decree of possession in their favour
and against the defendants in respect of two rooms, as per site plan
annexed of the property bearing No.752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, in view of the admissions made in the
pleadings and documents by the defendants.
2. Briefly delineated, the case of the plaintiffs as set out in the
plaint is that they are the owners of the property bearing No. 752-A
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 1 of 33
(South Side) measuring 210 Sq. Yds. situated at Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, having purchased the said property
vide Sale Deed dated 7.1.2011 from the absolute owners, namely,
Smt. Uma Devi, Sh. Sunil Saini, Sh. Anil Singh Saini, Sh. Vipin
Saini, Sh. Prashant Saini, Sh. Sanjeev Singh Saini, Smt. Pushpa Saini,
Sh. Mohit Saini, Sh. Keshav Saini, Mrs. Priti Saini, Sh. Shailender
Singh Saini, Sh. Ravinder Singh Saini, Sh. Bhalinder Singh Saini, Sh.
Kanwar Gopal Singh Saini, Sh. Rajinder Singh Saini, Sh. Yudhvir
Singh Saini and Sh. Surjit Singh Saini. The absolute owners had
given the suit property on rent to one M/s Vaishali International
having its office at Yashwant Place, New Delhi. The said M/s
Vaishali International earlier had its office at Defence Colony, New
Delhi and, therefore, utilized the suit property for the purpose of
residence of the drivers and other employees of the Company. M/s
Vaishali International ran into financial difficulties and surrendered
the tenancy of the suit property in favour of the erstwhile owners.
Though M/s Vaishali International ceased to be the tenant in the said
property and even called upon its employees to vacate the said
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 2 of 33
property, some of the employees started working for the erstwhile
owners and, therefore, stayed on as domestic help.
3. The plaintiffs entered into an Agreement to Sell with the
erstwhile owners of the property sometime in January, 2010. Since
the left over employees, who had stayed on as domestic help, were
using some rooms in the premises, the plaintiffs requested them to
vacate the premises. These employees demanded money to vacate
the property on the pretext that they had got some paint/polish done
in their respective rooms. The plaintiffs accordingly with a view to
resolve the dispute amicably agreed to reimburse the amount claimed
by them and entered into an oral settlement with them and made the
payment to them in accordance therewith. It is alleged in the plaint
that though all the other occupants left the premises and abided by the
settlement, the defendant No.1, Sh. Ram Chander Pathak turned
dishonest and refused to vacate the premises. The defendant No.1
was the driver in the Company, M/s Vaishali International. Initially,
he also agreed to vacate the premises and took part payment of
Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiffs. The balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
was to be paid on the defendant No.1 on his vacating the suit property.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 3 of 33
However, thereafter the defendant No.1 refused to vacate the
premises, though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay the
balance amount. The documents signed by the defendant No.1
evidencing the receipt of the amount from the plaintiffs have been
filed alongwith the plaint.
4. It is alleged in the plaint that during this period, the defendant
No.1 also brought one of his relations into one of the vacated rooms,
namely, Mr. Jagannath Mishra, and the latter was also made a party to
the settlement; and the plaintiffs were also coerced into paying the
money to the said Jagannath Mishra as well. The defendant no.1,
however, flatly refused to vacate the premises and he, since the date of
the purchase of the suit property, is an unauthorized occupant in the
property. The status of the defendant No.1 after termination of his
licence is, therefore, that of an illegal occupant and a trespasser. It is
alleged that the defendants are causing a lot of harassment to them
through their unauthorized occupation of the suit property and the
continuous complaints made by them against the plaintiffs before the
authorities. Hence, the present suit for possession, mandatory
injunction and mesne profits.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 4 of 33
5. In the present application under the provisions of Rule 6 of
Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs claim a decree
of possession, inter alia , on the following admissions made by the
defendants in their written statement:-
(i) Receipt dated 14.03.2010 duly signed by the
defendant No.1 and his wife, which is admitted
before this Court;
(ii) The statements of the defendant No.1, Shri Ram
Chandra Pathak and his wife, Gyanwati recorded
by the Court under the provisions of Order X of
the Code of Civil Procedure on 2.9.2011.
(iii) The Sale Deeds dated 7.1.2011 and 31.8.2010
executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Sainis
(the erstwhile owners).
(iv) The Assessment Order issued by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi after getting the same
verified from the revenue record.
(v) The admission made by the defendants in their
written statement that they have no ownership
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 5 of 33
rights in property bearing no.752-A, Sukhdev
Market, Kotla Mubark Pur, New Delhi.
(vi) The affidavits filed by Sh. Jagannath Mishra and
his wife Smt. Usha in this Court, [the sister and
brother-in-law of Smt. Gyanwati, (the wife of the
defendant no.1], who were also residing in the said
property, wherein they specifically stated that the
defendant and his wife only want to blackmail the
plaintiffs, and in fact they had vacated one room in
property bearing No.752-A, Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi on 22.04.2011.
(vii) Report dated 19.6.2010 of the Investigating
Officer.
(viii) Certificate dated 7.1.2011 executed by the Sainis
i.e. the erstwhile owners, specifically mentioning
that the defendants were in occupation of only two
rooms in the property, which had been sold to the
plaintiffs.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 6 of 33
(ix) Copy of the Vigilance Enquiry Report prepared by
Sh. Shriniwas Rajora, E.O. Inspector/Vigilance.
6. The aforesaid application, needless to state, is contested by the
defendant no.1, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs have been
making false averments from the very beginning and have filed the
Sale Deed in respect of property bearing No.752-A, Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi with the suit, which is situated at the
back side of the property bearing No. C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and there exists a brick wall between both
the properties. It is stated that intentionally and deliberately the
plaintiffs have shown the property bearing No. C-752, Sukhdev
Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi in the site plan filed with the
suit and not the actual property, that is, A-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. It is further stated that the application is
also liable to be dismissed because the defendant no.1 at no point of
time has admitted the case of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the
possession of the defendant No.1 and his family members is
continuous, peaceful and open for the last more than 30 years, which
is evident from the documents placed on record by them. It is
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 7 of 33
specifically denied that the defendant No.1 or his wife ever signed the
receipt dated 14.03.2010. It is stated that the alleged Vigilance
Enquiry Report was not impartial and had been submitted at the
instance of the plaintiffs. It is also stated that the signatures of the
defendant No.1 and his wife were obtained on blank papers and the
defendant no.1 never executed any receipt.
7. In the course of hearing, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, the counsel for
the plaintiffs, submitted that the admissions made by the defendants in
their written statement read with the documentary evidence on record
warrants the passing of a decree for possession under the provisions of
Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the outset, the
counsel referred to the receipt prepared by the daughter of the
defendant no.1 in her hand-writing dated 14.03.2010, the contents of
which are to the effect that the five tenants whose names are set out in
the receipt have each settled to vacate the premises on receipt of a
sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, that is, in all Rs.15,00,000/-; each has received
Rs.50,000/- and the balance of Rs.2,50,000/- (total Rs.12,50,000/-)
would be received by 30.05.2010 on vacating the premises. It is
further set out that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 8 of 33
between Surinder Singh son of Sh. Budh Singh and the five families
mentioned therein without any pressure or coercion and by mutual
agreement. The receipt purports to be signed by (1) Sh. Ram Kewal
Shukla and Prabhat Shukla (2) Ram Chander Pathak and Gyanwati
Devi (3) Neeraj kumar and Renu (4) Jagannath Mishra and Usha (5)
Chander Bhal Pandey and Anju Pandey.
8. Reference was next made by the counsel for the plaintiffs to the
statements of the defendant No.1 and his wife recorded by this Court,
which for the sake of ready reference are reproduced hereunder in
their entirety.
“Statement of Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak S/o Sh.
R.K.Pathak aged 49 years, R/o C-752, Sukhdev
Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi
On SA
I am residing at the premises no. C-752, Sukhdev
Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi since 1982. I
am unable to give the date or exact month when I came
to occupy the property. However, it may be either May
or June of 1982.
I am in occupation of only two rooms of the said plot.
There is a third room which is adjacent to these two
rooms which is not having any roof. I have stored my
belongings in this room. I am also occupying a kitchen,
bathroom and latrine.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 9 of 33
In 1982, I was employed as a peon with M/s East Coast
Board Builders & Engineers Ltd.
One Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj was living in these rooms
in 1982. He had permitted me to occupy these two
rooms in order to sustain myself. I was doing his sewa
and he permitted me to occupy the premises for this
reason.
I do not know who was the registered owner of the
premises. I believed that Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj was
the owner of the premises.
Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj started travelling in and out of
these premises. He lastly stayed in these premises in
the year 1985-86. I have never seen title documents of
the said property.
I have never paid any rent of these premises to any
person. I have never paid property tax with regard to
the said property. I have never written to the MCD or
any authority or any person that I am the owner of the
property which I was occupying. I have never claimed
that I am the owner of this property.
Other than an incident when Saini group objecting to
my occupation of the premises, no person has interfered
with my possession. I had lodged a police complaint
with regard to the harassment by the Saini group.
th
I have seen the original of the document dated 14
March, 2010 Exh. P-1. I deny the encircled portion at
point A-1 as my signatures. I normally sign in English
and the signatures are in Hindi however I can identify
the signatures of my wife who has signed this
document at point B-1 which is marked Exhibit P-1.
The plaintiff had obtained our signatures on a blank
page.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 10 of 33
Exh. P-1 contains the names and signatures of Sh.
Neeraj Kumar at point K-1; Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla at
point C-1; Sh. Jagannath Mishra at point D-1; Sh.
Chandra Bhan Pandey at point F-1; Renu at point L-1;
Usha at point H-1; Anju Pandey at point J-1; Sh.
Bhagwan Dass Pandey at point G-1 and Indrawati at
point E-1 who were also occupying different portions
of the property.
th
I have seen the receipt dated 14 March, 2010 Exh. P-
2 which contains my signatures at point A-2 ;
R.K.Shukla at point C-2; of Jagannath at point D-2 and
Indrawati at point E-2.
Usha is the wife of Sh. Jagannath Mishra. Anju Pandey
is the daughter of Sh. Chandra Bhan Pandey. Neeraj
Kumar is the son of Sh. Lurkhur Ram. Indrawati is the
wife of Sh. Chandra Bhan Pandey. The full name of
R.K.Shukla is Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla. Prabhat Shukla
is the son of Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla. All these persons
were earlier occupying other portions of the same
property.
I worked with M/s East Coast Board till the year 1990.
I started working as a driver since 1991 with Mr. Rajiv
Desai who has a public relations company.
M/s BSES removed the electricity meter from the
portion of the premises under my occupancy on the
pretext that there was some fault in the meter and the
same required to be changed. The meter was replaced
by the electricity company. Thereafter a raid was
conducted by the vigilance department of the electricity
company which concluded that there was a fake meter
and removed the same. The vigilance department of the
electricity company has verified the meter thereafter
and concluded that an error had been committed by its
officials.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 11 of 33
When the officials of the electricity company came to
re-install the meter, Surender and Virender beat up the
employees of the electricity company and did not permit
the installation of the meter. The meter could be
installed only with the assistance of the police . I claim
that I am occupying a portion of the property bearing
no. C-752, and not 752-A, only because Sh.
Ashutoshji Maharaj had told me that the property was
numbered in Sukhdev Market, New Delhi. I have no
official assignment or number of any document in this
regard.
The water and electricity connections were granted to
me based on my application and the information given
by me with regard to the details of the property
including its number.”
“Statement of Smt. Gyan wati W/o Sh. R.C.Pathak aged
47 years, R/o C-752, Sukhdev Nagar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi
On SA
I was married to the defendant no.1 about 32-33 years
ago in Delhi. I have been residing at the above address
throughout.
My brother-in-law (devar) Sh. Babu Lal Pathak with
his two children resides with us.
From my marriage to the defendant no.1, we were
blessed with three daughters and one son. Our eldest
daughter has since been married. My children are
educated.
th
I am educated up to the 5 class and can read Hindi. I
have seen the original of Exh. P-1 which bears my
signatures at point B-1. It also contains the
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 12 of 33
signatures of my husband at point A-1 which is
encircled. My husband and I had affixed our
signatures on a blank piece of paper. I do not know
who has written the document. My sister Smt. Usha has
signed at point H-1. I do not know when my sister has
put the signatures at point H-1. My sister and her
family was also residing on the same property.
We are occupying the rooms in the front of the
property. My sister Usha and her family were
occupying the last portion. Sh. Chander Bhan Pandey,
a friend of my husband came to occupy a portion of the
premises with his family. He had been given a room
adjacent to the room occupied by us. Sh. Jagannath
Mishra is the husband of my sister Usha. Sh. Neeraj
Kumar was working with my husband in Chanakyapuri.
He was living with his family in a jhuggi in Babu
Market. On account of inconvenience being faced by
Neeraj Kumar and his family on account of the ear
operation which his wife had undergone, my husband
had brought him also to a portion of the premises. Sh.
Ganga Prasad Mishra is the father of Sh. Jagannath
Mishra. He is therefore the father-in-law of my sister
Usha. Anju Pandey was the daughter of Sh. Chander
Bhan Pandey. Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla was living in a
jhuggi in Gautam Nagar. He has been allotted an
alternative accommodation against the jhuggi in
Gautam Puri near Sarita Vihar. However Sh. Ram
Kewal Shukla‟s wife was unwell and was being treated
at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences which is
near to our residence, for this reason we had permitted
him to stay with us and were helping him with the
treatment of his wife. Sh. Prabhat Shukla was the son
of Sh. Ram Kewal Shukla.
No rent was being paid by any person. They had been
living with us out of love and affection.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 13 of 33
I have met Sh. Ashutoshji Mahajan (sic: Maharaj) on
his visits to the suit premises. I have looked after him
and nursed him in his sickness. He had left the premises
about 4 or 5 days before the assassination of Smt.
Indira Gandhi. He has never come to the suit premises
again. I do not know who is the owner of the suit
premises.
In the year 1999, the Saini family members had told us
to vacate the suit premises failing which they would kill
us. I had lodged the complaint with the police by post
with regard to this incident. We do not own any other
property in Delhi.”
9. On the basis of the aforesaid statements, learned counsel
contended that the defendant No.1, not having denied the execution of
the receipts Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2 and having received a sum of
Rs.50,000/- in cash from the plaintiffs, had dishonestly backed out of
the settlement. It was further contended that it was evident from the
statements of the defendant no. 1 and his wife that they identify not
only their own signatures but also the signatures of the other
occupants on the receipts. Thus, Shri Ram Chandra Pathak admitted
that the receipt Exhibit P-1 contains the names and signatures of his
wife at point B-1 Sh. Neeraj Kumar at point K-1; Sh. Ram Kewal
Shukla at point C-1; Sh. Jagannath Mishra at point D-1; Sh. Chandra
Bhal Pandey at point F-1; Smt. Renu at point L-1; Smt. Usha at point
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 14 of 33
H-1; Smt. Anju Pandey at point J-1; Sh. Bhagwan Dass Pandey at
point G-1 and Indrawati at point E-1, who were also occupying
different portions of the property. He further admitted that the receipt
Exhibit P-2 contained his signature at point A-2; signature of R.K.
Shukla at point C-2; signature of Jagannath Mishra at point D-2 and
of Indrawati at point E-2. He also categorically admitted that all these
persons were earlier occupying different portions of the same property
and had since vacated the same. Smt. Gyanwati in her statement
recorded by this Court too admitted her signature on Exhibit P-1 at
point B-1 and those of her husband at point A-1 and those of her
sister, Smt. Usha at point H-1. She candidly stated that her sister and
her family had also been residing in the same property; that her sister
and her family were occupying the portion behind the front portion,
that is, the “last portion”; that Sh. Chander Bhan Pandey, a friend of
her husband’s, had also come to occupy a portion of the premises with
his family and had a room adjacent to theirs; that Sh. Jagannath
Mishra was the husband of her sister, Usha; that Sh. Neeraj Kumar,
who was working with her husband in Chanakyapuri was also
occupying a portion of the premises with his family; and that Shri
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 15 of 33
Ram Kewal Shukla had also been staying in the said premises with his
family.
10. Mr. Sandeep Sharma next referred to an affidavit of Shri
Jagannath Mishra, the brother-in-law of Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak,
whose wife Smt. Usha is admittedly the sister of the defendant No.2,
Smt. Gyanwati, wife of the defendant no.1. The relevant portion of
the said affidavit reads as under:
“1. That I and my family was misled by Sh. Ram Chandra
Pathak and his wife Smt. Gyanwati. In fact it is Sh. Ram
Chandra Pathak and Smt. Gyanwati who are dishonest
and want to illegally occupy the two rooms and blackmail
the plaintiffs for huge sum of money. In fact we were only
the licencee in the room and after it was terminated by the
plaintiffs orally we have been unauthorisedly occupying
the same.
2. I say that I have signed and taken a sum of Rs.
50,000/- in cash from the plaintiffs on 14.3.2010 and the
receipt of the same is enclosed with this affidavit. This
whole receipt was prepared by the daughter of Sh. Ram
Chandra Pathak who has also signed on the said page
and has in fact received a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the
same date. It is he who turned dishonest and used his
wife and daughter to black mail the plaintiffs. On the
same date another receipt was also executed between the
plaintiffs and myself and Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak.
The said receipt was signed by me, my wife Smt. Usha,
Ram Chandra Pathak and his wife.
3. I say that I have received the entire balance sum of
Rs.2.50 lacs and has vacated the premises today. A sum of
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 16 of 33
Rs.75,000/- has been paid vide cheque bearing No.
000004 dated 22.4.2011 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank
Ltd, M-3, South Extension-II, New Delhi and balance
Rs.1,75,000/- has been paid in cash to me. The
possession of the room has been handed over to the
plaintiffs and I have no right, title and interest in the said
property. In fact Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak or Smt.
Gyanwati also have no right, title and interest in the said
property as they are only occupying the same with the
sole intent to blackmail the plaintiffs and cheat them.
4. I say that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in
question in which I was illegally occupying one room
alongwith my family and also Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak is
occupying two rooms illegally and unauthorisedly. I have
handed over the possession of my room to the plaintiffs
including the common spaces.
5. I say that the number of the property is 752-A and not
C-752 as is being falsely claimed by Sh. Ram Chandra
Pathak and his wife.”
11. An affidavit on identical lines was also filed by Smt. Usha,
sister of Smt. Gyanwati and wife of Sh. Jagannath Mishra.
12. Mr. Sandeep Sharma also placed reliance on a Certificate dated
7.1.2011 issued by the erstwhile owners, Sh. Ravinder Singh Saini,
Sh. Bhalinder Singh Saini, Sh. Kanwar Gopal Singh Saini, Sh.
Rajinder Singh Saini, Sh. Yudhvir Singh Saini and Sh. Surjit Singh
Saini, which is reproduced in its entirety hereunder:-
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 17 of 33
“TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
The undersigned persons do hereby declare as under:-
That we were the erstwhile owners of Property bearing No.
752-A, measuring 210 sq. yds, Situated at Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi-110003.
That we have sold our share in the said property to S/Sh.
Pratap Singh, Trilok Chand Semwal and Surinder Singh
vide registered Sale Deed dated 07.01.2011 registered in the
S.R.Office, New Delhi.
That we had in part performance of the sale agreement
delivered the possession of substantial portion of the said
property and symbolic possession of the remaining portion
i.e. two rooms which was is possession of Sh. Ram Chandra
Pathak and his wife Smt. Gyano Devi alongwith their
children. Mrs. Gyano Devi who, at one time was a domestic
help working some of us and was in that capacity allowed to
occupy the said two room portion of the property as a
licensee.
That we had revoked the license and had asked her to
vacate the premises in her occupation before the execution
of sale deed dt. 07.01.2011 in favour of S/Sh. Pratap Singh,
Trilok Chand Semwal and Surinder Singh.
That Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak and his wife Smt. Gyano
Devi have been in illegal and unauthorized possession of
the portion of above said property.
(1) Yudhvir Singh Saini Sd/-
(2) Ravinder Singh Saini Sd/-
(3) Bhalinder Singh Saini Sd/-
(4) Kanwar Gopal Singh Sd/-
(5) Rajinder Singh Saini Sd/-
(6) Surjeet Singh Sd/-
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 18 of 33
13. To counter the submissions of Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Rana
Ranjit Singh, the counsel for the defendant no.1, principally
contended that the defendant and his family had been in continuous
possession of property bearing no. C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and occupying the same as owners by way
of adverse possession for the last more than 30 years. He relied upon
an insurance premium receipt, electricity bills, water bills, telephone
bills, house-tax receipts and award of the Labour Court in this regard.
He further contended that the plaintiffs had filed the site plan of
property bearing No.C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur,
New Delhi and not of property bearing No.A-752 Sukhdev Market,
Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, though the plaintiffs have nothing to
do with the property bearing No. C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the records, the Court is of the opinion that the undeniable
position is as follows:-
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 19 of 33
(i) The plaintiffs are the owners of the property
bearing No. 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi by virtue of Sale Deed
dated 7.1.2011, admeasuring 210 Sq. Yds. Prior
thereto, that is, on 31.08.2010, plaintiffs had
purchased land admeasuring 80 Sq. Yds. on the
north side of 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi by a separate Sale-Deed.
(ii) Both the aforesaid Sale-Deeds are executed in
favour of the plaintiffs by the erstwhile owners,
namely, Smt. Uma Devi, Sh. Sunil Saini, Sh. Anil
Singh Saini, Sh. Vipin Saini, Sh. Prashant Saini,
Sh. Sanjeev Singh Saini, Smt. Pushpa Saini, Sh.
Mohit Saini, Sh. Keshav Saini, Mrs. Priti Saini, Sh.
Shailender Singh Saini, Sh. Ravinder Singh Saini,
Sh. Bhalinder Singh Saini, Sh. Kanwar Gopal
Singh Saini, Sh. Rajinder Singh Saini, Sh. Yudhvir
Singh Saini and Sh. Surjit Singh Saini (for short
“the Saini Group”).
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 20 of 33
(iii) It is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs received
physical possession of a substantial portion of the
said property from the erstwhile (the Saini Group)
and symbolic possession of the remaining portion,
that is, two rooms, which were in the possession of
the defendant no.1 and his family, who were using
the said premises on a licence basis.
(iv) It also stands established from the record that four
other families, who were occupying a portion each
of the suit property vacated the same after
termination of their respective licence on receipt of
money from the plaintiffs in the sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- each.
15. The contention of the defendants that Receipts Exhibit P-1 and
P-2 were signed in blank by them is belied by a bare look at the
receipts, the originals whereof are on record. It is also on record that
those who were living in the suit premises as licencees of the
erstwhile owners (the Saini Group) have also not supported the case
of the plaintiffs. There is also on record the affidavit of the witness
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 21 of 33
to the receipts, namely, Sh. Bal Kishan to the effect that the
aforesaid receipts were executed in his presence. In the statements
of the defendant no.1 and his wife recorded before this Court, they
have identified the signatures of all the co-licencees on the aforesaid
receipts as also their own signatures. Thus, the question of the
receipts having been executed in blank does not arise.
16. The only two pleas raised in defence by the defendant no.1 in
the written statement are as follows:-
(i) that they are the owners of the property by virtue
of adverse possession;
(ii) that the property in question is C-752, Sukhdev
Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and not
752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New
Delhi.
17. In so far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, the
following details are missing in the written statement of the
defendants:-
(i) the initial nature of the possession of the defendant
no.1 and his wife;
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 22 of 33
(ii) the date on which the defendant no.1 and his wife
came into adverse possession;
(iii) whether the factum of such possession was known
to the real owner;
(iv) the period during which the aforesaid possession
continued; and
(v) whether it was open and undisturbed.
18. In view of the lack of material particulars in this regard, as
noted above, the statement of defendant No.1 and his wife were
recorded under the provisions of Order X of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In his statement, Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak, the defendant
No.1 stated that he was unable to give the date or exact month when
he came to occupy the property. However, it may be either May or
June of 1982. In 1982, he was employed as a peon with M/s East
Coast Board Builders & Engineers Limited. One Sh. Ashutoshji
Maharaj was living in those rooms in 1982. He had permitted
him (the defendant No.1) to occupy these rooms in order to
sustain himself. He was doing his sewa and, therefore, he
(Ashutoshji Maharaj) permitted him to occupy the premises for this
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 23 of 33
reason. He did not know who were the registered owners of the
premises. He believed that Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj was the owner of
the premises. Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj started travelling in and out of
these premises. He lastly stayed in these premises in the year 1985-
86.
19. In her statement, Smt. Gyanwati, wife of the defendant
no.1, on being asked by the Court about Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj,
stated that she had met Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj on his visits to the
suit premises. She had looked after him and nursed him in his
sickness. He had left the premises about 4 or 5 days before the
assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi and had never come to the
premises again. She did not know who was the owner of the suit
premises.
20. It deserves to be noticed at this juncture that there is no
reference in the written statement to Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj or
to any other person or to Shri Ashutoshji or anyone else having
allowed the defendants to occupy the two rooms in the suit
premises. The name of Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj emereged for the first
time when the statements of the defendants No.1 and his wife were
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 24 of 33
recorded by the Court under Order X of the Code, though the
defendants No.1 and 2 did not claim even then that Sh. Ashutoshji
Maharaj was at any point of time the owner of the premises and as
a matter of fact Smt. Gyanwati in her statement recorded by the Court
clearly stated that in the year 1999, the Saini family members (the
erstwhile owners) had told them to vacate the suit premises, failing
which the defendants would be killed by them. She had lodged the
complaint with the police with regard to this incident. The story of
Sh. Ashutoshji Maharaj is, therefore, of no avail to the defendant
no.1. There is also no document in support of the plea of adverse
possession.
21. It is trite law that for a party to claim title by adverse
possession, he must plead and prove that he is not only in continuous
and uninterrupted possession for a period of 12 years or more but
such a possession set up by him was hostile to the real owner whose
title he denies by setting up such title in himself. It is, thus, not mere
physical possession or continuous possession which could vest any
right in the defendant no.1, but such continuous and uninterrupted
possession necessarily has to be adverse and hostile to the real owner.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 25 of 33
There is not a whisper in this regard in the written statement and the
necessary inference which arises is that the defendant no.1 and his
family were occupying two rooms in the suit premises as licencees of
the erstwhile owners, viz, the Saini Group, which licence stood
terminated as claimed by the plaintiffs and by the erstwhile owners.
22 . The only other plea sought to be raised by the defendants No.1
viz., that the property, which is occupied by the defendant no.1 is part
and parcel of the property bearing No.752-C, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, is also clearly untenable in the face of the
documentary evidence on record, inter alia , being the following
documents:
(i) the Sale Deeds dated 7.1.2011 and 31.8.2010 and
the site plan of the property, which is duly checked
and authenticated by the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi;
(ii) the Certificate issued by the Muncipal
Corportation of Delhi regarding mutation of the
property in favour of the plaintiffs, which
specifically shows that the property in question is
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 26 of 33
No.752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur,
New Delhi and not C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
(iii) Receipt dated 14.03.2010 mentions the address as
752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New
Delhi and not 752-C, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
(iv) The Assessment Order in respect of the suit
property, issued by the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi after getting the same verified from the
Revenue Record, which mentions the address as
A-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New
Delhi.
(v) The affidavits given by Sh.Jagannath Mishra and
his wife, Smt. Usha to the effect that the address of
the property was 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, and that they had vacated
one room on 24.02.2011 in the said property and,
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 27 of 33
now, two rooms in the said property were occupied
by the defendant No.1 and his wife.
(vi) The Certificate dated 7.1.2011 executed by the
erstwhile owners viz., the Saini Group, wherein it
is specifically mentioned that the defendant no.1
was in occupation of two rooms in the property
bearing No. 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
(vii) Affidavit of Sh. Bal Kishan, witness to the receipts
Exhibit P-1 and P-2, to the effect that the said
receipts were executed in his presence between the
plaintiffs and five families occupying the premises
bearing No.752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, and that at the time of the
execution of the receipts, no dispute was raised in
relation to the address of the property by anyone
including the defendants No.1 and his wife.
(viii) Complaint of Mr. Vikas Kumar from the office of
BSES to the SHO, Police Station Kotla Mubark
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 28 of 33
Pur, New Delhi with regard to heated argument and
scuffle between the plaintiffs and Smt. Gyanwati,
wife of the defendant no.1 when he went for the
installation of electricity meter at the premises
bearing No. 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
(ix) Status report dated 2.9.2011 of the Station House
Officer of the Police Station Kotla Mubark Pur,
New Delhi to the effect that registration of FIR No.
173/2011 under Section 323/341/34 IPC was done
against the plaintiffs on the complaint of BSES
staff, Mr. Yusuf Khan, wherein it is mentioned that
there is a civil dispute going on between the
plaintiffs and Sh. Ram Chandra Pathak, Pratap
Singh & Ors.; the plaintiffs claim the said plot to be
752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New
Delhi, whereas the defendants claim the same
property as C-752, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 29 of 33
23. Then there is on record the Vigilance Enquiry Report
which was obtained on the complaint of the wife of defendant
No.1 that she was living in the property bearing No.C-752,
Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. The relevant
extract of the said Vigilance Report is extracted hereinbelow:
“That the enquiry revealed that Gyanwati and her
family members are residing in the property in
question, that is, mentioning her address as C-752,
Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi
for the last 30 to 32 years. Although, she is in
possession of Ration Card, Voter Card, Birth
Certificate and other documents as well as water
and electricity meter in her name, but such
documents can be prepared easily by fulfilling
mere formalities. She, however, does not have an
authentic document to establish her ownership
over the property in question. She has stated in
her statement that the said plot was given to her by
one Sh. Ashutosh. But, during discreet enquiry no
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 30 of 33
one has supported this fact. Moreover, no one has
described that any person by the name Ashutosh
ever resided in this property. On further
verification from the Revenue Record, it has been
found that there is no such person who is the
owner of above property. As per the Revenue
Record, there is no property bearing No.C-752,
Sukhdev Market, kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
Her claim is thus not authentic. ”
24. In the aforesaid Enquiry Report, it is further mentioned
that on 14.03.2010, an agreement was executed between Ram
Chandra Pathak, husband of Gyanwati and other persons and
Surender Singh (one of the partners of purchaser’s side) to
vacate the property in question after receiving the compromise
amount. It is further stated that Ram Chandra Pathak and
Gyanwati had signed this agreement and after a long time had
complained that they had signed upon the agreement by force .
At the risk of repetition, it may be reitereated at this juncture
that it was on the complaint of Smt. Gyanwati on 28.03.2011
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 31 of 33
that the aforesaid Vigilance Report was called from the higher
authorities.
25. The aforesaid facts clearly establish that the plea being set up
by the defendant no.1 that he is in possession of property bearing no.
C-752 and not 752-A is patently false and cannot be permitted to be
put on trial.
26. In a given situation, as in the instant case, admissions can be
inferred from the documents filed by the parties, the documents issued
by statutory authorities, the affidavits of those who were admittedly
involved in the transaction and the statements made by the parties
before the Court under Order X of the Code. Taken cumulatively, the
aforesaid, in the present case are sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to a
decree of possession against the defendant No.1 under the provisions
of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. As held by the Supreme Court in the
recent case of Karam Kapahi & Ors. Vs. M/s Lal Chand Public
Charitable Trust & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 2077, the scope and ambit of
the said provision is extremely wide. The relevant extract of the
judgment analyses the provision as follows:-
“If the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is compared with
order 12 Rule 6, it becomes clear that the provision of
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 32 of 33
Order 12 Rule 6 is wider in as much as the provision of
Order 12 Rule 1 is limited to admission by „pleading or
otherwise in writing‟ but in Order 12 Rule 6 the
expression „or otherwise‟ is much wider in view of the
words used therein namely: „admission of fact…….. either
in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing.
Keeping the width of this provision in mind this Court held that
under this rule admissions can be inferred from facts and
circumstances of the case.”
27. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer in the present application is
allowed and a decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiffs
and against the defendant no.1 in respect of two rooms as per site plan
annexed of the property bearing No. 752-A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla
Mubarak Pur, New Delhi.
28. The application stands disposed of accordingly. CS(OS)
696/2011 also stands disposed of.
REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGE
July 05, 2012
sk
CS(OS) No.696/2011 Page 33 of 33