RAM GOPAL Vs. SUNDER LAL
LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-259
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 19,2007

RAM GOPAL Appellant
VERSUS
BIMLA DEVI,VIDYAWATI,SH.SUNDER LAL (DECEASED),RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.M.MALIK, J. - (1.) The genesis and sequence of this second appeal filed by the defendants/appellants is this. The deceased respondent, Sunder Lal, filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Shiv Chand, father of deceased respondent, and after his death in the year 1957, plaintiff/deceased respondent has been in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 308/30 measuring 3 biswas of Revenue Estate, situated at Giya Sarai. On 22.03.1978 Ram Gopal, appellant no. 1 and his wife Smt. Bimla Devi, appellant no. 2 tried to demolish the boundary wall of the said land, but due to intervention of respondent they could not accomplish the illegal act. Thereafter, the respondent filed a suit for injunction against appellant no. 1 on 22.03.1978. The appellant was summoned. During the pendency of that suit counsel for the appellant Sh. R.K. Sharma, made the following statement in the court of Sh. B.L. Garg, Sub-Judge Ist Class, Delhi on 18.04.1978 on behalf of the appellant:- 'Statement of Shri R.K. Sharma, Adv. for the defendant. I am undertaking that the defendant will not interfere in the physical possession of the plaintiff and that the defendant will not dispossess the plaintiff as the defendant has no concern with the suit premises. ROandAC Sd/-B.L.Garg Sd/- Sd/- Sub Judge Ist Class: Advocate Ram Gopal Delhi 18.04.1978 Sd/- Examiner 24.04.1978'
(2.) Consequently, the plaintiff/respondent withdrew his suit and the court passed the following order :- 'In view of the statement of the plaintiff and the counsel for the plaintiff, the suit is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and the defendant will be bound by the statement of his counsel. the file be consigned to Record room.'
(3.) On 05.06.1978 at about 8.00 a.m. the respondent got the wind of appellants' plan to take undue advantage of the fact that the courts were closed due to summer vacation for one month and they would forcibly occupy the suit land and erect structures thereon. On receipt of this information the plaintiff visited the spot where the appellants came there in his presence with a truck loaded with bricks for storing it on suit land but finding that the plaintiff was present on the spot, the appellants vamoosed along with the truck. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for permanent injunction with the prayer that the appellants be restrained from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of of the suit land or from entering upon and occupying or taking possession of it. In the alternative it was also prayed that in the event the appellants had entered into and occupied or possessed or having succeeded in erecting any constructions / structures on it, a mandatory injunction order be passed directing the appellants to vacate the suit land and remove all structures and buildings erected by them on it.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.