Manjit Kaur & Ors. vs Daya Nand & Anr. on 11 July, 2016

1. This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 20.04.2015 passed in RCA No. 70/14. The said
first appeal had been preferred by the appellant/defendants against the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 25.09.2014 in suit No.
255/11 filed by the respondent-Dayanand. The first appellate court has
dismissed the first appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants and
concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court, namely, learned
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GDN Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

RSA 201/2015 Page 1 of 16
2. The respondent/plaintiff preferred the aforesaid suit for recovery of
possession, injunction and damages/mesne profits against the
appellants/defendants in respect of property No. C-171, Sector 25, Rohini,
Delhi, along with a decree of damages/mesne profits. The plaintiff claimed
to be the owner of the suit property and to be in possession of the first floor
portion thereof. He claimed that in the year 2008, he had asked one Mr.
Ishak @ Chhotu (defendant No. 5) who was known to him for seven years,
to take care of the suit property. He claimed that on 03.10.2010, when he
visited the suit property, he found that it was occupied by defendant Nos. 1
to 4 and after inquiry, he contacted defendant No.5. On this, defendant No.
5 informed him that in 2008, defendant No. 1 was introduced to him
through a common friend and he gave her shelter for three months in the
suit property out of sympathy. However, all the defendants conspired to
retain possession of the suit property. The plaintiff further stated that he
received the summons in civil suit No. 600/10 filed by defendant No. 1
against him. In the said suit, defendant No. 1 claimed herself to be a tenant
in the suit property under the plaintiff as landlord. She also claimed to have
given Rs. 2 lacs to the plaintiff as security amount. The aforesaid civil suit
was disposed of on 18.08.2011, as the plaintiff herein gave an undertaking
to the court that he would not dispossess defendant No. 1 without due
process of law. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Upon
service of summons, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the present suit filed a joint
written statement. Defendant No. 5 filed a separate written statement. In
their written statement, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 disputed the claim of
ownership made by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 5 filed his written

RSA 201/2015 Page 2 of 16
statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. The trial court framed the
following issues on the basis of pleadings:

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply