- (1.) A suit seeking a decree of possession in respect of the suit property based on title filed by Yogesh Chandra Sharma/plain-tiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009. The civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been accepted by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2011 and resultantly, his suit has been decreed and he has been held entitled to the possession of the suit property. The defendants/appellants are in second appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. The plaintiff instituted a suit pleading that he had purchased the suit property i.e. two plots bearing No. 21 & 22 total measuring 14 marlas situated in Moza Badkhal, Tehsil and District Faridabad vide sale deed dated 27.11.1989 from vendors Shyam Lal and Vinod Kumar for valuable consideration. The plaintiff had been put in physical possession of such suit property in the year 1989 itself and he had even raised a boundary wall at the spot. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a practicing advocate in Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur and seldom visits Faridabad and as such by taking an advantage of his absence, the defendants have trespassed over the suit property and have even raised certain construction. Such encroachment came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 24.01.2003 and the defendants having refused to remove such encroachment and to vacate the suit property, hence the suit.
(2.) The suit was contested in terms of filing separate written statements by defendant Nos. 1 & 2. The stand however, taken by both the defendants, who happens to be husband and wife is that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit property to defendant No. 2 on 24.12.1996 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,10,000/-. It was pleaded that the entire sale consideration had been paid and the defendants had been put in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, defendant No. 2 claimed to be absolute owner of the suit property.
(3.) The following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the suit property on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Relief.;