Civil Suit Judgment Summary

Civil
Suit No.9917/2016: “Pramod Kumar Sharma V/s Tarun Mohan Sharma & Ors.”
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE10
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.9917/2016 (Old No.196/2015)
(TEN YEARS OLD MATTER)
In the matter of:
Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma,
S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma,
D363, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi110023.
Presently Residing At: 51B/BG5, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi110063.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Rohtash Singh, Advocate)
Versus
1. Shri Tarun Mohan Sharma,
S/o Shri Brij Mohan Sharma
2. Smt.Samta,
D/o Shri Brij Mohan Sharma
3. Ms.Kavita,
D/o Shri Brij Mohan Sharma,
All R/o A40, Vishnu Garden,
Near Sheetala Mata Mandir,
New Delhi.
(D1 to D3 Through Shri Satya Narayan, Advocate)
4. Smt.Raj Jha, (Exparte)
W/o Shri Suraj Bhan Jha,
R/o BG5, 29B, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi110063.
.....Defendants
Date of Institution of Suit : 16.08.2007
Date of reserving judgment : 15.09.2017
Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2017
Page 17 of 17
Civil Suit No.9917/2016: “Pramod Kumar Sharma V/s Tarun Mohan Sharma & Ors.”
SUIT FOR PARTITION, POSSESSION, DECLARATION, DAMAGES
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
19.09.2017
J U D G M E N T:
The facts of the case, as borne out from the record are that
Late Shri Chiranji Lal, S/o Shri Pooran Chand was the father of plaintiff
and defendant No.4 and grandfather of defendants No.1 and 3 and
fatherinlaw of defendant No.2. He was admittedly the owner of
property bearing No.A40, Vishnu Garden, near Sheetala Mata Mandir,
New Delhi, admeasuring 200 sq.yards, by virtue of a registered sale deed
dated 22.11.1953, executed in his favour by its erstwhile owner. He had
four children namely plaintiff, Shri Brij Mohan Sharma,i.e father of
defendants No.1 and 3, Smt.Mithilesh (not disclosed by the plaintiff in
the plaint) and Smt.Raj Jha. Shri Chiranji Lal was an employee of
CPWD and in that capacity he had been allotted government quarter
bearing No.D363, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. Plaintiff and late Shri
Brij Mohan Sharma were residing with him in the said quarter, while
Smt.Mithilesh and Smt.Raj Jha had been married and they were residing
in their respective matrimonial homes. Shri Chiranji Lal expired in the
year 1985. Thereafter, the government quarter was regularized in the
name of plaintiff as he was also an employee of CPWD. It appears that
thereafter till the year 1989 both the brothers resided in the government
quarter and thereafter Shri Brij Mohan Sharma shifted to A40, Vishnu
Garden, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “said property”). As
per the plaintiff, during his lifetime Shri Chiranji Lal had orally divided
the said property between him and Shri Brij Mohan Sharma. As per
him, Shri Brij Mohan Sharma constructed house in 100 sq.yards area and
Page 17 of 17
started residing with his family therein; whereas, another 100 sq.yards
area was left vacant, which was in the share of plaintiff (hereinafter
referred to as the “suit property”).
2. In December' 2003, the plaintiff decided to construct the

suit property as he was due to retire in June' 2007 and he had to vacate
the government quarter and he did not have any other accommodation
available with him in Delhi, but he could not construct the same because
of paucity of funds. Thereafter, in June' 2004, he decided to raise
construction over the suit property, but Shri Brij Mohan Sharma
obstructed him from raising the construction. The plaintiff tried to
construct the suit property on 23 subsequent occasions, but every time
obstruction thereto was caused by Shri Brij Mohan Sharma. Later on,
the plaintiff came to know that Shri Brij Mohan Sharma was trying to
sell of the suit property. Accordingly, on 22.07.2004 the plaintiff filed a
suit for permanent injunction, being CS No.142/2004, titled as, “Pramod
Kumar Sharma V/s Brij Mohan Sharma & Anr.”, inter alia seeking
restraining them from interfering in his lawful use and enjoyment of the
suit property. Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, after getting served in that suit
filed an application U/s 340 Cr.P.C, inter alia contending that the
plaintiff had filed false and frivolous suit despite knowing the fact that
Shri Brij Mohan Sharma was the owner of suit property. Thereafter, the
plaintiff filed an application U/o 23 Rule 1 CPC, seeking leave of the
Court to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same
cause of action. During the course of arguments on both the aforesaid
applications, Shri Brij Mohan Sharma produced on record copies of Gift
Deed dated 21.07.1972, executed by Shri Chiranji Lal in his favour in
respect of half portion of said property and WILL dated 16.12.1983 of
Page 17 of 17
Shri Chiranji Lal, bequeathing the remaining half portion of said

property to him. In view of the aforesaid documents, the learned Civil
Judge vide his order dated 01.06.2005 allowed the plaintiff to withdraw
the suit, but did not grant liberty to him to file a fresh suit on the same
cause of action. The application U/s 340 Cr.P.C was dismissed on the
ground that the plaintiff had pleaded that he had no idea about the
aforesaid two documents. It is evident from the proceedings of the said
suit that copies of the aforesaid two documents were made available to
the plaintiff by Shri Brij Mohan Sharma on or before 19.11.2004.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 16.08.2017 after serving
legal notice dated 16.04.2017 upon defendants No.1 to 3. It is relevant
to note here that in the meantime, Shri Brij Mohan Sharma had expired
in the year 2006. The plaintiff has sought a decree of partition of the
said property and staked his claim upon the suit property as his share,
damages, permanent injunction and declaration, declaring the WILL and
Gift Deed executed by Shri Chiranji Lal in favour of Shri Brij Mohan
Sharma and WILL dated 04.10.2004, executed by Shri Brij Mohan
Sharma in favour of defendant No.1 to be null and void.
3. Defendants No.1 to 3 filed their joint written statement after
getting served with the summons for settlement of issues, inter alia
taking the preliminary objection that the suit was time barred; it was not
valued properly for the purpose of court fees. It was barred by law as the
Ld.Civil Judge had not granted liberty to the plaintiff to file suit on the
same cause of action. It was also claimed that the suit was bad for
misjoinder of parties. On merits, it was pleaded that Shri Chiranji Lal
being absolute owner of the said property had disposed off the same, half
by way of Gift Deed dated 21.07.1972 and remaining half by way of
Page 17 of 17
WILL dated 16.12.1983 in favour of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma. It was
specifically stated that the plaintiff had never resided at suit property.
4. The plaintiff filed replication, interalia denying the

averments of the defendants and reiterating the ones made by him in the
plaint.
5. Defendant No.4 Smt.Raj Jha filed her separate written

statement, wherein she pleaded lack of knowledge about execution of
Gift Deed and WILL by Shri Chiranji Lal. Due to her aforesaid lack of
knowledge about the aforesaid two documents, she stated that plaintiff
and Shri Brij Mohan were entitled to inherit the estate in equal
proportion. After filing the written statement, she did not appear in
Court and was proceeded “exparte”.
6. With the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, this court vide
order dated 30.07.2008 framed issues in the matter, however, vide order
dated 24.08.2009 an “additional issue” was also framed which
subsequently stood modified vide order dated 19.12.2014. As such, the
correct position of issues framed in the matter are as under:
Issues:
(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to grant of decree for
partition and separate possession of his share in House
No.A40, Vishnu Garden, near Sheetala Mandir, New
Delhi? OPP.
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of

Rs.15,000/ @ Rs.5,000/ per month from 01.05.2007 till
31.05.2007 for damages/mesne profits, as claimed and
whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future
damages? If yes, at what rate? OPP.
Page 17 of 17
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to grant of decree of

permanent injunction, as claimed? OPP.
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration, as
claimed? OPP.
(v) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD123.
(vi) Whether suit had not been properly valued? OPD123.
(vii) Whether suit is liable to be rejected in view of plaintiff
having filed earlier suit which was withdrawn and
wherein no liberty was granted to plaintiff to file fresh
suit? OPD123.
(viii) Relief.
7. In order to discharge the onus of proving issues, plaintiff
examined himself as PW1, his brotherinlaw Shri Ramesh Chand
Sharma (saala) as PW2 and official from HouseTax Department MCD
(West Zone) as PW3. On the other hand, the defendants examined
Record Keeper from the O/o SubRegistrarII, Kashmere Gate as DW1,
Mauja Clerk from Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts as DW2,
official from the Office of District Magistrate as DW3, defendant No.1
Shri Tarun Mohan Sharma as DW4, Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma,
Attesting Witness on WILL dated 16.12.1983 as DW5 and Shri Jagdeep
Singh, Attesting Witness on WILL dated 04.10.2004 as DW6.
8. A brief analysis of the evidence recorded in the matter is
that the plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his affidavit by
way of evidence. He proved site plan of the property in question as
Ex.PW1/1, legal notice dated 16.04.2007, issued by him to defendants
Page 17 of 17
No.1 to 3 prior to filing the suit alongwith postal receipts. The plaintiff
examined PW2 Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma to corroborate the facts
stated by him in his evidence. The plaintiff examined PW3 from the
HouseTax Department to prove that the housetax of the suit property
continued to be paid in the name of Shri Chiranji Lal till the year 2007
despite he having expired in the year 1985 itself. Thereafter, the
defendant No.1 got his name mutated in the HouseTax Department on
the basis of WILL dated 04.10.2004 Ex.DW1/3, executed by his father
Shri Brij Mohan Sharma in his favour.
9. Per contra, the defendants examined DW1,i.e Record
Keeper from the O/o SubRegistrar, who brought the record with regard
to WILL dated 16.12.1983 Ex.DW1/1, executed by Shri Chiranji Lal in
favour of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma. DW2 Mauja Clerk from Record
Room (Civil) was examined to prove the record of CS No.142/2004,
titled as, “Shri Parmod Kumar Sharma V/s Shri Brij Mohan Sharma
& Anr.” , which culminated into order dated 01.06.2005 Ex.DW2/10,
whereby the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the suit for permanent
injunction filed by him against Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, which was in
respect of the suit property. DW3, the witness from the O/o District
Magistrate produced the record in respect of Gift Deed dated 21.07.1972
Ex.DW3/A. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW4 and reiterated
the facts stated by him in his written statement. He specifically proved
WILL dated 04.10.2004 Ex.DW1/3, executed in his favour by his father
Shri Brij Mohan Sharma. DW5 Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma was
examined as one of the attesting witnesses upon WILL dated 16.12.1983
Ex.DW1/1. Similarly, DW6 Shri Jagdeep Singh was examined as one
of the attesting witnesses upon WILL dated 04.10.2004 Ex.DW1/3.
Page 17 of 17
10. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by Shri Rohtash
Singh, Advocate on behalf of plaintiff and Shri Satya Narayan, Advocate
on behalf of defendants No.1 to 3. My issue wise findings in the matter
are as under.
11. Issue No.(v):
Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD123.
The onus to prove this issues was upon the defendants. The
learned counsel for defendants has very vehemently argued that the
plaintiff had come to know about Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW1/1 in July'
2004 when the reference of these two documents was given to him in
Court. It is further argued that even prior thereto the plaintiff had the
knowledge about the aforesaid two documents which is evident from
reply to legal notice dated 24.04.2007 Ex.PW1/D1 and as such, the
present suit having been filed on 16.08.2007 is clearly time barred. As
far as Ex.PW1/D1 is concerned, the defendants have not placed on
record the proof of receipt of it. When this document was put to the
plaintiff in his crossexamination, he denied the same. A perusal of the
ordersheets of earlier suit, particularly ordersheet dated 19.11.2004
(being part of Ex.DW2/9 Colly) shows that the copy of Gift Deed
Ex.DW3/A was supplied to the plaintiff in Court on that day. The order
sheet further records that the copy of WILL Ex.DW1/1 had already been
supplied to the plaintiff, but the previous order sheets do not specify as
to on which date the copy was supplied. Therefore, from the material
available on record, the limitation period shall have to be reckoned from
November' 2004 and as such, the suit filed on 16.08.2007 as per Article
58 of the Schedule of The Limitation Act is within time. The issue is
accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Page 17 of 17
12. Issue No.(vi):
Whether suit had not been properly valued? OPD123.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The
issue was framed on the basis of a specific preliminary objection taken
by the defendants. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of
jurisdiction at Rs.18,00,000/, i.e the market value of the entire property
and has paid advalorem court fees thereupon. The plaintiff has also
separately valued all the reliefs. Under the law, the plaintiff was
required to pay Court Fees only upon his share. As per the provisions of
Chapter 3 of Delhi High Court Rules, particularly PartC, SubClause 8
thereof, which deals with valuation with regard to suit for partition of
immovable property, it has been categorically stipulated that for the
purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of whole of the property
sought to be partitioned is to be considered. The Hon'ble High Court
had the occasion to interpret the aforesaid provision in case reported as,
“AIR 1991 Delhi 280”, titled as, “Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj V/s Ram
Prakash Sharma”, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to
hold as under:
xxxxx
8. Next argument advanced by counsel for the
appellant is that the plaintiff has only 1/6th share in
the properties and having regard to the value of
his share, admittedly the value of the properties,
falling to his share, shall be within the jurisdiction
of the trial court as according to him the suit has to
be valued on the basis of his share only and
cannot be determined with respect to the value of
the whole property. It is settled principle of law
that in a suit for partition of the property, as in the
present case, the jurisdictional value has to be
determined on the value of the whole of the property
Page 17 of 17
in accordance with the provisions of R.8 of Chapter
3C of Punjab High Court Rules and Orders,
Volume I, framed by the High Court under the
powers conferred by the S.9 of the Suits Valuation
Act, 1887. In this matter, I am supported by the
decision of Prithvi Raj, J in “Jagdish Pershad V/s
Joti Pershad”, 1975 RajLR 203, wherein it has
been held that S.9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887
(VII of 1887) envisages that when the subject matter
of suit of any class, other than suits mentioned in
the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paragraphs V
and VI, and paragraph X, clause (d), is such that in
the opinion of the High Court it does not admit of
being satisfactorily valued, the High Court may
with the previous sanction of the State Government
direct that the suits of that class, shall, for the
purposes of CourtFees Act, 1870, and of the Suits
Valuation Act and any other enactment for the time
being in force; be treated as if their subject matter
were of such value as the High Court thinks fit to
specify in that behalf. Pursuant to its aforesaid
power the Punjab High Court has framed Rule 8 in
Chapter 3C of the Punjab High Court Rules and
Orders, Volume I, which are applicable to Delhi,
providing for the value regarding court fee and
jurisdiction which a plaintiff is required to state in
the plaint in suits for partition of property. It
would, therefore, be seen that so far as value for the
purpose of jurisdiction is concerned, for the
purposes of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, value of the
whole of property, sought to be partitioned, as
determined by Sections 3, 8 and 9 of the Suits
Valuation Act has to be stated. Accordingly, for the
purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, the value of
the whole of the property should be taken into
consideration.”
xxxxx
Therefore, no fault can be found with regard to the valuation
of the suit by the plaintiff. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of
plaintiff.
Page 17 of 17
13. Issue No.(vii):
Whether suit is liable to be rejected in view of plaintiff
having filed earlier suit which was withdrawn and
wherein no liberty was granted to plaintiff to file fresh
suit? OPD123.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The
record of previous suit between the parties is available. The said suit
Ex.DW2/1 was filed by the plaintiff against Shri Brij Mohan Sharma on
22.07.2004, seeking permanent injunction that he should not interfere in
the lawful use and enjoyment of suit property. In the said suit, Shri Brij
Mohan Sharma filed an application U/s 340 Cr.P.C Ex.DW2/5, inter alia
stating therein that the plaintiff had filed a false suit knowing fully well
that Shri Brij Mohan Sharma was the sole owner of the suit property.
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application U/o 23 Rule 1 CPC
Ex.DW2/3 and sought leave of the Court to withdraw the said suit with
the liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Both the
aforesaid applications were disposed off by the learned Civil Judge vide
his order dated 01.06.2005. The said suit was not contested by the
parties on merits. In any case, the said suit was for injunction and not
for any other relief; whereas, the present suit is a substantive suit,
seeking declaration, partition, injunction and damages. The plaintiff was
not required to take any leave from the Court to file the present suit. The
issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
14. Issues No.(i) and (iv):
(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to grant of decree for
partition and separate possession of his share in House
No.A40, Vishnu Garden, near Sheetala Mandir, New
Delhi? OPP.
And
Page 17 of 17
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration, as
claimed? OPP.
Both these issues are being taken up together for

adjudication as the same are interconnected and the findings thereupon
would be common. The onus to prove both these issues was upon the
plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has very vehemently
argued that the issue with regard to the plaintiff being entitled to the suit
property,i.e half of the total property had been decided by the Ld.Civil
Judge in Ex.DW2/10 in as much as a declaration was granted by the
Ld.Civil Judge in this regard. The learned counsel referred to para 6 of
this order. I have gone through entire Ex.DW2/10. The argument in
based upon complete misreading of the order. In fact, the Ld.Civil
Judge did not grant any such declaration. He had merely recorded the
submissions of the parties. Even otherwise, he could not have granted a
decree of declaration in a suit for permanent injunction .
15. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff
that defendant No.4 in her written statement has clearly supported the
stand of plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
partition, as claimed for. This argument is again upon a misreading of
the written statement of defendant No.4. She in reply to para 815 stated
that her father,i.e Shri Chiranji Lal had not informed her about execution
of Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW1/1 in favour of her brother Shri Brij Mohan
Sharma. Therefore, she did not categorically deny the said two
documents. She in fact, controverted the plaintiff in reply to para 89,
wherein she categorically stated that the defendants ever had any
negotiation to sell the suit property in her presence.
Page 17 of 17
16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff very vehemently

argued that both Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW1/1 are forged and fabricated
documents. With regard to Ex.DW3/A, it was argued that this document
was not executed in the manner the same has been shown to have been
executed and registered. In this regard, he referred to the cross
examination of DW3, wherein he stated that the paper on which this
document was written was different from the other documents on the
record. He further stated that the page numbering of the register was on
the back pages and not on the front pages. The learned counsel, however
did not question the capacity of Shri Chiranji Lal to execute the said
document. This document when produced in Court from the custody, it
should naturally come, was more than thirty years old and there is a
presumption of geniuinity thereof U/s 90 of The Indian Evidence Act,
which is reproduced as under:
xxxxx
“90. Presumption as to documents thirty years
old – Where any document, purporting or proved
to be thirty years old, is produced from any
custody which the Court in particular case
considers proper, the Court may presume that
the signature and every other part of such
document, which purports to be in the
handwriting of any particular person, is in that
person's handwriting, and, in the case of a
document executed or attested, that it was duly
executed and attested by the persons by whom it
purports to be executed and attested.
xxxxx
(underlining emphasized)
17. The defendants have proved Ex.DW3/A by calling the

record from the concerned office. The plaintiff did not challenge the
signatures of Shri Chiranji Lal thereupon. A perusal of order dated
Page 17 of 17
03.09.2014 reveals that the plaintiff had planned to obtain hand writing
expert's report with regard to the signature of Shri Chiranji Lal appearing
on this document as well as Ex.DW1/1, but he abandoned that idea and
rightly so.
18. Ex.DW1/1 has been proved by defendants by examining

one of the attesting witnesses namely DW5 Shri Ramesh Chand. The
plaintiff has not challenged the testamentary capacity of Shri Chiranji
Lal. The document was, however, questioned on the ground that in this
document Shri Chiranji Lal did not make specific mention about he
having already executed Gift Deed Ex.DW3/A in respect of half of the
property,i.e 100 sq.yards in favour of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma. This
argument is again not tenable for the simple reason that while
mentioning the directions in this document, Shri Chiranji Lal had clearly
stated that on the east side of the property being bequeathed to Shri Brij
Mohan Sharma, already half of the portion of the property belonging to
Shri Brij Mohan was there. The presumption U/s 90 of Indian Evidence
Act is also applicable to this document. Therefore, the defendants have
succeeded in proving this document as well.
19. The defendants have also proved WILL dated 04.10.2004
Ex.DW1/3 by examining one of its attesting witnesses namely Shri
Jagdeep Singh.
20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the suit
property is still lying vacant, which prima facie indicates that the
defendants have been waiting for the decision in this case and in case,
the plaintiff succeeds then the possession thereof could be given to him
Page 17 of 17
without causing much damage/loss to them. To buttress this argument,
reliance has been placed upon the record with regard to HouseTax,i.e
Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/C. A combined reading of allthe aforesaid
documents produced by PW3 reveals that the housetax in respect of the
entire property was being paid till the year 2007 in the name of Shri
Chiranji Lal, whereas he had expired in the year 1985. It was only in the
year 2007,i.e after the expiry of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma that the same
was got mutated in the name of defendant No.1. It is argued that the very
fact that the housetax was paid in the name of Shri Chiranji Lal till the
year 2007 indicates that Shri Chiranji Lal had not executed Ex.DW3/A
and Ex.DW1/1 in favour of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma. I do not agree
with the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The
title or ownership of a property can never be proved through housetax
record.
21. It is evident on record that plaintiff did not make his sister
Smt.Mithilesh a party in this suit. She was a necessary party. He
concealed this fact from the Court, however, in his evidence he admitted
that Smt.Mithilesh was required to be made a party in this case. The
plaintiff has clearly failed to prove oral partition by Shri Chiranji Lal
between him and Shri Brij Mohan Sharma with regard to the suit
property. The conduct of the plaintiff is clearly evident that despite
coming to know of the resistance by Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, whereby
he did not permit him to raise construction at the suit property, he did not
initiate any action under the criminal law against him between the period
from year 2004 to 2007. The plaintiff has taken stand that Ex.DW3/A
and Ex.DW1/1 are false and fabricated documents, yet he did not take
any action either against Shri Brij Mohan Sharma in his lifetime or
Page 17 of 17
against defendants No.1 to 3. It is also evident that the plaintiff did not
approach the Court in filing this suit promptly and waited till the death
of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma.
22. The plaintiff has accordingly failed to establish that he is
entitled to the declaration sought for in the matter; whereas, the
defendants have succeeded to prove all the three documents,i.e Gift
Deed dated 21.07.1972 Ex.DW3/A, whereby half of the total property
(100 sq.yards on the eastern side) was given to Shri Brij Mohan Sharma,
WILL dated 16.12.1983 Ex.DW1/1, whereby remaining half portion was
bequeathed to him. WILL dated 04.10.2004 Ex.DW1/3, whereby the
entire property was bequethed to defendant No.1 by Shri Brij Mohan
Sharma. By virtue of the aforesaid documents, the defendant No.1 has
been able to prove to his exclusive title to the suit property. Therefore,
the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in seeking partition of the said
property. Both the issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
23. Issues No.(ii) and (iii):
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of
Rs.15,000/ @ Rs.5,000/ per month from 01.05.2007 till
31.05.2007 for damages/mesne profits, as claimed and
whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future
damages? If yes, at what rate? OPP.
And
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to grant of decree of
permanent injunction, as claimed? OPP.
The onus to prove both these issues was upon the plaintiff.
The plaintiff having miserably failed to prove issues No.(i) and (iv) and
the aforesaid issues being coterminus with issues No.(i) and (iv), the
Page 17 of 17
plaintiff is neither entitled to any damages nor permanent injunction, as
sought for. Both these issues are accordingly decided against the
plaintiff.
24. Relief:
In view of my specific findings on all the issues aforesaid,
suit filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merits stands dismissed,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
25. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
26. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of

necessary formalities.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 19.09.2017 Addl. District Judge10 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
Page 17 of 17

Civil Suit Judgment Summary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Suit Judgment Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil

2. In December' 2003, the plaintiff decided to construct the

Shri Chiranji Lal, bequeathing the remaining half portion of said

4. The plaintiff filed replication, interalia denying the

5. Defendant No.4 Smt.Raj Jha filed her separate written

(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of

(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to grant of decree of

Both these issues are being taken up together for

16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff very vehemently

17. The defendants have proved Ex.DW3/A by calling the

18. Ex.DW1/1 has been proved by defendants by examining

26. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of

You might also like

Civil Suit Judgment Summary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Suit Judgment Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil

2. In December' 2003, the plaintiff decided to construct the

Shri Chiranji Lal, bequeathing the remaining half portion of said

4. The plaintiff filed replication, inter­alia denying the

5. Defendant No.4 Smt.Raj Jha filed her separate written

(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of

(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to grant of decree of

Both these issues are being taken up together for

16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff very vehemently

17. The defendants have proved Ex.DW3/A by calling the

18. Ex.DW1/1 has been proved by defendants by examining

26. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of

You might also like

4. The plaintiff filed replication, interalia denying the