JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th of April, 1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, by which the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief for permanent injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the suit land measuring 22 kanals was on 99 years lease with her from 6th November, 1974 to 6th November, 2073 on payment of Rs. 200/- per year and registered lease deed bearing No. 2847 dated 6th November, 1974 had been executed in her favour by Sohan Lal and others. It was further averred that she has never surrendered her leasehold rights in the suit land, nor she has been evicted by the owners so far, that she is in its continuous possession, and that the Patwari of the village wrongly deleted her name in the jamabandi for the year 1982-83 and the khasra girdawari after 1982-83 carry entries on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1982-83. It was further averred that her name finds mention in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 and since she continued in possession as a lessee, therefore, jamabandi for the year 1982-83 was liable to be corrected and her name was liable to be entered in column Nos. 5 and 9 of the jamabandi. It was also averred in the plaint that the defendant alleged to have purchased the suit land and under the garb of the sale deed dated 11th March, 1986 defendant is trying to interfere in her possession to which the defendant has no right and as such defendant be restrained from interfering in her possession.
(3.) In the written statement defendant has denied that the plaintiff is a lessee or for that matter she is in possession of the suit land. According to the defendant, if there is any such lease deed, then the same is fake, bogus and sham document created as a device to defeat the right of pre-emption in respect of the sale of the suit land made by Sohan Lal and others in favour of Vidyawati. Further the case of the defendant is that the sale deed and lease deed are the part of the same transaction through split into two documents. According to the defendant, the lease deed was never acted upon by the parties. Defendant has denied that the plaintiff never surrendered lease hold rights or she had ever been in possession of the suit land. The case of the defendant further is that defendant has purchased 55 kanals 16 marlas of land (out of total land 129 kanals 4 marlas) vide registered saledeed dated 11th of March, 1986 for a consideration of Rs. 2,09,250/- from the previous owner namely Vidyawati Saini through Rajinder Singh Saini her general attorney after due enquiry and verification about the ownership and possession of Vidyawati from the revenue record of the patwari and also at the spot. It has further been averred in the written statement that the possession of the land in dispute was handed over to the defendant at the time they had purchased the suit land. It was further averred that the plaintiff has got no cause of action, nor there is any question of holding out any threat by the defendant to the plaintiff for dispossession other objections taken are that the suit land is not properly described, plaint is not properly signed and verified; the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff is estopped by her act, conduct and acquisition from filing the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is perpetual lessee in possession of the suit land, as alleged ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff never surrendered the lease hold rights and was never ejected as alleged ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct ? OPD
8. Relief.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.