RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J. - (1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the four defendants, namely (a) Bimla Khatri, (b) Pooja Bhoot, (c) Jitender Kumar and (d) Delhi Development Authority (DDA), pleading that (i) Plot No.14-G, Block-8A, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 85.6 sq.yds. (subject property) was allotted vide letter dated 23rd November, 2005 by the defendant no.4 DDA to Suraj Prakash, husband of the plaintiff; (ii) the said Suraj Prakash, on 23rd December, 2005 requested the defendant no.4 DDA to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) for construction on the subject property and defendant no.4 DDA vide letter dated 13th April, 2009 granted sanction in respect of the building plan, electricity connection, water connection, etc. for the subject property; (iii) the said Suraj Prakash died on 5th September, 2012 and the defendant no4 DDA vide its letter dated 26 th August, 2014 transferred/mutated the subject property in the name of the plaintiff; (iv) the plaintiff applied to defendant no.4 DDA for extension of time for raising construction on the subject property and deposited the requisite charges therefor; (v) on 16th August, 2015, the plaintiff made a complaint to the police, of some persons raising illegal construction on the subject property and soon thereafter filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, impleading defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri as a party thereto, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri from raising any unauthorized construction on the subject property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction carried out on the subject property; (vi) the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri, in the said suit produced Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney, both dated 29th October, 2007 and Will dated 25th October, 2007, purportedly executed by Suraj Prakash in favour of defendant no.2 Pooja Bhoot, transferring his rights in the subject property in favour of defendant no.2 Pooja Bhoot for a sale consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs paid and received in cash; (vii) that the value of the subject property as per the circle rate of the relevant area/category at that time was Rs.19,33,000/-, though the market rate was Rs.85 lakhs; (viii) the Agreement to Sell for Rs.4 lakhs, purportedly executed by the husband of the plaintiff, was thus a sham; (ix) the plaintiff, as wife of Suraj Prakash, would have known of the Agreement to Sell if any entered into by him; (x) the aforesaid documents were witnessed by defendant no.3 Jitender Kumar and for which reason he has also been impleaded as a party; (xi) it was further the plea of defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri in the suit aforesaid that defendant no.2 Pooja Bhoot, vide Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, etc. all dated 5th February, 2010 had assigned the rights in the subject property in favour of the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri herein; (xii) the plaintiff withdrew the said suit with liberty to sue afresh; (xiii) that Suraj Prakash, under the terms of allotment of the subject property by the defendant no.4 DDA, could not have sold or transferred the same without prior permission of the defendant no.4 DDA and which was never applied for or granted; (xiv) that the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, etc., relied upon by the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri, do not confer any title in the subject property to her or to defendant no.2 Pooja Bhoot; and, (xv) that as per the records of DDA, the rights in the subject property are of the plaintiff.
(2.) On the aforesaid pleas, reliefs of (i) declaration as null and void of the Agreement to Sell dated 29th October, 2007, Will dated 25th October, 2007 and Special Power of Attorney dated 29th October, 2007; (ii) declaration as null and void of Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, possession letter, receipt, Will, as well as affidavit, all dated 5th February, 2010; (iii) declaration of the ownership of the plaintiff of the subject property; (iv) declaration that the defendants no. 1 to 3 are not the owners of the subject property and are trespassers thereon; (v) decree for possession of the subject property; and, (vi) decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing with the subject property or raising any construction thereon, are sought.
(3.) The suit came up first before this Court on 26 th September, 2016, when while issuing summons/notice thereof, vide ex-parte ad-interim order, the defendants restrained from creating third party rights in the subject property. The said order was made absolute on 20th February, 2019.;