ANITA D/O LATE SRI RAM LAL Vs. SHYAM SUNDER BATRA S/O LATE SRI RAM LAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-191
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 21,2013

Anita D/O Late Sri Ram Lal Appellant
VERSUS
Shyam Sunder Batra S/O Late Sri Ram Lal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-2012 passed by 3rd Addl. District Judge Dehradun, in Civil Appeal No. 139/2011, Anita Vs. Shyam Sunder Batra as well as judgment and decree dated 9-11-2011, passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) 4th Dehradun in O.S. No. 369 of 2008, Shyam Sunder Batra vs. Anita. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and for eviction and possession of the property in dispute, on the ground that the defendant-appellant was permitted to stay temporarily in the property in dispute, which was given to her in the year 2006 on the assurance that when it is needed by the plaintiff then she will vacate the premises and give vacant possession. As per plaint averment the property in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff from Sri Ram Lal S/o Sri Topan Dass by way of registered sale-deed dated 9-3-1995. It was specifically pleaded in para-2 of the plaint that part of the property measuring 18 feet x 30 feet was also sold out to defendant. Thereafter plaintiff sold a part of disputed property, measuring 23 feet x 10 feet, to Baljit Singh S/o Sardhar Mohinder Singh by way registered sale-deed dated 26-7-2002. By way of notice dated 31-5- 2008 the permission was revoked but despite of the period mentioned in the notice i.e. 30 days, no possession was given therefore suit was filed.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant by filing written statement. The defendant denied the title of plaintiff and it was pleaded that the sale-deed was obtained by the plaintiff playing fraud on the vendor father. In para-19 of the W.S. it was pleaded that the sale-deed was obtained fraudulently by the plaintiff from his father and has not paid any consideration for it.
(3.) The court on the basis of pleadings of parties framed necessary issues in the suit and parties adduced evidence. The trial court decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed dated 9-3-1995, executed by his father in his favour. Apart from this the learned trial court also gave a finding that no suit for cancellation sale-deed executed in favour of plaintiff, has been filed either by the defendant or by the father of parties. Therefore the defendant failed to establish her right against the plaintiff.;


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