Smt. Goldy Kaur vs Smt. Neha on 9 September, 2016

(ii) As per the case in the plaint, appellant/defendant was inducted

as a tenant in the suit property by the earlier owner Smt. Tarunajeet Kaur at a

rent of Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f 1.5.2008. Appellant/defendant is said to

have not paid the rent w.e.f 19.5.2011. The subject suit for possession and

damages therefore came to be filed against the appellant/defendant by the


3. Respondent/plaintiff in the suit filed her written statement and

pleaded that she was the owner of the suit property because she had

purchased rights in the same for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each from the previous

owners Sh. Ram Avtar and Sh. Roshan Lal vide Receipts dated 13.1.2003

(Ex.DW1/1, colly). It was pleaded that the chain of documentation executed

RSA No. 88/2016 Page 3 of 19
in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and originating from Sh. Ram Avtar and

Sh. Roshan Lal were forged and fabricated documents and that the

respondent/plaintiff wants to illegally grab possession of the suit property.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply