asha-arora & anr. vs. d.s. sodhi-appeal-rfa- dhc.pdf

8/10/2019 ASHA-ARORA & ANR. vs. D.S. SODHI-APPEAL-RFA- DHC.pdf

1/30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

R.F.A. NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. ASHA ARORA & ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SHRI D.S. SODHI ...RESPONDENT

INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Court Fee.

2. Urgent Application.

3. Notice of Motion.

4. Memo of Parties.

5. Opening Sheet.

6. Memo of Appeal along with Affidavit.

7. Annexure A-1Certified copy of the impugned judgmentand decree dated 08.11.2013.

8. Annexure A-2Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated05.06.1996.

9. Annexure A-3Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated05.06.1996.

10. Annexure-A-4Certified copy of the Perpetual Lease Deeddated 14.11.1968.

11. Annexure A-5Certified copy of the Conveyance Deeddated 07.10.1994.


2/30

12. Annexure-A-6Certified copy of the Lease Deed dated01.10.1980.

13. Annexure A-7Certified copy of the legal notice dated22.01.2002.

14. Annexure A-8Certified copy of the reply dated 06.02.2002

to the legal notice.

15. Annexure A-9Certified copy of the rejoinder dated08.04.2002 to the reply notice dated06.02.2002.

16. Annexure A-10Certified copy of the Agreement to Selldated 24.01.1989.

17. Annexure A-11Certified copy of the plaint in the suitNo.301/11/02.

18. Annexure A-12Certified copy of the written statement filedby Smt. Vathsala Chandroo.

19. Annexure A-13Certified copy of the replication filed by therespondent to the written statement of Mrs.Vathsala Chandroo in suit no.301/11/02.

20. Annexure A-14Certified copy of the written statement of the

Appellants.

21. Annexure A-15True copy of the plaint of the Appellants.

22. Annexure A-16True copy of the written statement.

23. Annexure A-17Truecopy of the order dated 27.10.2006.

24. Annexure A-18Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of PW-1 ShriD.S. Sodhi.


3/30

25. Annexure A-19Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of PW-2 ShriS.K. Govil.

26. Annexure A-20Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination)of PW-3 Shri RajKumar Garg.

27. Annexure A-21Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of PW-4 ShriDevak Ram.

28. Annexure A-22Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of D1DW Smt.Vathsala Chandroo.

29. Annexure A-23Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of D1W2 HeadConstable Kishan Chand.

30. Annexure A-24Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of D1W3 ShriV.C. Mishra.

31. Annexure A-25Certified copy of evidence (examination inchief and cross examination) of D2W1 ShriHomender Arora.

32. Annexure A-26Certified copy of the judgment and decreedated 27.07.2013 passed by the Ld. TrialCourt in suit no.295/11/02.

33. Annexure A-27True copy of the order dated 10.10.2013passed in RFA No.482/2013.

34. Annexure A-28Certified copy of the Agreement dated14.02.1984.


4/30

35. Annexure A-29Certified copy of the Special Power of

Attorney dated 14.02.1984.

36. Annexure A-30Certified copy of the Agreement dated08.11.1968.

37. Annexure A-31Certified copy of the Site Plan.

38. Annexure A-32Certified copy of the GPA in favour of Sh.Yog Raj Arora.

39. Annexure A-33Certified copy of the GPA in favour of Sh.Homender Arora.

40. Annexure A-34

Certified copy of the General Power ofAttorney in favour of Sh. Rajiv Manchanda.

41. Annexure A-35Certified copy of the SPA in favour of Sh.Dinesh K. Maniam.

42. Vakalatnama.

APPELLANTS

NEW DELHI THROUGHDATED:

(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)

ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTSA-26, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSION

NEW DELHI-110014MOB: 9810236228

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]


5/30


R.F.A. NO. OF 2013

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. SMT. ASHA ARORAW/O SHRI YOG RAJ ARORAR/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,

NEW DELHI

2. SHRI HOMENDER ARORAS/O LATE SHRI ATMA PRAKASHR/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,NEW DELHI APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SHRI D.S. SODHIS/O SHRI K.S. SODHIR/O B-4/6, VASANT VIHAR,NEW DELHI-110067 ...RESPONDENT

APPELLANTSNEW DELHI THROUGHDATED:

(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTS

A-26, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSIONNEW DELHI-110014

MOB: [email protected]

(APPEAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS UNDERSECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OFCIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED JUDGMNET &DECREE DATED 08.11.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SHRIRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-5,CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN C.S.NO.295/2011/2006 WHEREBY SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS FORRECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY ANDMESNE PROFITS HAS BEEN DISMISSED)


6/30


R.F.A. NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. SMT. ASHA ARORAW/O SHRI YOG RAJ ARORA

R/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,NEW DELHI

2. SHRI HOMENDER ARORAS/O LATE SHRI ATMA PRAKASHR/O 161-A, SAINIK FARM,NEW DELHI APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SHRI D.S. SODHIS/O SHRI K.S. SODHIR/O B-4/6, VASANT VIHAR,NEW DELHI-110067 ...RESPONDENT

APPEAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE

IMPUGNED JUDGMNET & DECREE DATED 08.11.2013

PASSED BY THE COURT OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-5, CENTRAL

DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN C.S.NO.295/2011/2006 WHEREBY SUIT OF THE

APPELLANTS FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF

IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY AND MESNE PROFITS HAS

BEEN DISMISSED


7/30


8/30

BRIEF FACTS

1. That the appellants herein are owner of the property and

premises bearing Municipal No.B-4/6, Vasant Vihar, New

Delhi, having purchased the same from the erstwhile

owner Smt. Vathsala Chandroo by means of two Sale

Deeds dated 05.06.1996 (Ex. D2W1/3 and Ex. D2W1/4)

duly executed and registered in favour of appellant no.1

and 2 respectively. Certified copies of the said Sale

Deeds dated 05.06.1996 are annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure A-2 andA-3 respectively.

2. That admittedly Smt. Vathsala Chandroo was the owner

of the said property by means of a Perpetual Lease Deed

dated 14.11.1968 (Ex. PW1/10) and subsequent

Conveyance Deed dated 07.10.1994 (Ex. D1W1/4). A

certified copy of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated

14.11.1968 is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure-A-4, whereas a certified copy of the

Conveyance Deed dated 07.10.1994 is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure A-5.

3. That the respondent herein was a tenant in the Ground

Floor portion of the aforesaid property on the date of the

purchase of the suit property by the appellants. He was


9/30

also in unauthorized use and occupation of the First

Floor portion of the said property. However, the

respondent herein in the present proceedings has

claimed himself to be a tenant in respect of the entire

property comprising of Ground Floor, First Floor and a

room /mumty on the terrace i.e. Second Floor. The

respondent has claimed his tenancy in respect of the

aforesaid premises under a written lease deed dated

01.10.1980 (Ex. PW1/2). A certified copy of the said

Lease Deed is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure-A-6.

The Ld. Trial Court by means of the impugned

judgment and decree has held that the respondent herein

was not only a tenant in respect of the Ground Floor

portion but was also the tenant in respect of the

remaining portion of the building i.e. the First Floor.

4. That the factum of purchase of the suit property by the

appellants herein was communicated to the respondent

herein in the year 1996 itself and the copies of all the

relevant documents were supplied to the respondent.

5. That the appellants herein also got issued and served

upon the respondent a legal notice dated 22.01.2002


10/30

(wrongly typed as 22.01.2001) through their counsel Shri

Amit S. Chadha, Advocate. By means of the said notice

the rent of the premises was sought to be increased from

Rs.1200/- per month to Rs.1320/- per month w.e.f.

01.03.2002 in terms of Section 6A and 8 of the Delhi

Rent Control Act. The said notice was duly proved on

record asEx.PW1/15. A certified copy of the said notice is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-7.

6. That the respondent on being served with the legal notice

dated 22.01.2002(Ex.PW1/15)

got issued and served

upon the appellants a reply dated 06.02.2002 from his

counsel Shri Sushil Kumar Bhalla, Advocate. The said

reply has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/16. A

certified copy of the said reply dated 06.02.2002 is


In the said reply it was claimed by the Respondent

herein for the first time that he has entered into an

Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1989 with the erstwhile

owner Smt. Vathsala Chandroo and that the respondent

herein is not a tenant in the premises nor he is liable to

make the payment of rents rather he claimed himself to

be transferee in possession. It was specifically stated in

the said reply that:-


11/30

(vii) That in reply to Para No.7 it is vehementlydenied that my client is tenant and he has anyliability as such.

It is the submissions of the appellants that in the said

reply the respondent herein has set-up a title of the suit

property in himself thereby renouncing the character of

tenant and as such the respondent renounced his

tenancy. Tenancy of the Respondent stood forfeited in

terms of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act.

7. That the appellants got issued and served upon the

respondent a rejoinder dated 08.04.2002 through their

counsel Shri Amit S. Chadha, Advocate which rejoinder

was duly proved on record asEx.PW1/17. A certified copy

of the said rejoinder is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure A-9.

8. That at this stage the respondent herein filed a suit for

Specific Performance against Smt. Vathsala Chandroo in

respect of the alleged Agreement to Sell dated

24.01.1989. In the said suit the respondent also

impleaded the present appellants and further sought a

relief of Declaration to the effect that the Sale Deed

dated 05.06.1996 in favour of the appellants herein be


12/30


13/30

replication are reproduced herein below for the kind

perusal of this Honble Court:-

..the plaintiff was tenant in respect of entireaccommodation on the Ground Floor as well as FirstFloor vide Lease Deed dated 01.10.1980. (Para 5 (iii) ofreply to Preliminary Objections)

..the entire suit property was in the tenancy andpossession of the plaintiff and there was no occasion forthe defendant no.1 to enter the same without the

permission of plaintiff(Para 5 (vi) of reply to PreliminaryObjections).

..since the entire property was in possession andtenancy of the plaintiff, therefore, question ofbreaking (Para 5 (viii) of the reply to PreliminaryObjections)

in fact, the entire property in question wasearlierunder the tenancy of plaintiff .(Para 13 of the reply toPreliminary Objections)

A certified copy of the replication filed by the

respondent herein to the written statement of Mrs.

Vathsala Chandroo in suit no.301/11/02 is annexed


11. That the appellants herein also filed their detailed

written statement in the said suit (CS No. 301/11/2002),

thereby bringing all true and correct facts on record. A

certified copy of the said written statement of the

Appellants is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure A-14.


14/30

12. That the appellants herein filed the present suit for

Possession and Mesne Profits against the respondent

herein on 01.06.2006 on the ground that the respondent

/tenant by setting up a title in himself has renounced his

tenancy and as such the tenancy of the Respondent

stood forfeited in terms of Section 111 (g) of the Transfer

of Property Act. The said suit was registered as suit

no.295/11/06. A true copy of the plaint of the Appellants

in the said suit is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure A-15.

13. That the respondent herein on being served with the

summons of the present suit (CS No. 295/2011/2006)filed

his written statement, thereby taking all frivolous

objections. The respondent in the said written statement

took a u-turn from his earlier stand and claimed as if he

continues to be a tenant as well as a transferee under

the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1989. A true

copy of the said written statement is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure A-16.

14. That the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to settle issues

on 27.10.2006 in the present suit (CS No. 295/2011/2006).

The three additional issues were also framed on

12.09.2013. All the issues as framed by the Ld. Trial


15/30

Court in the present proceedings are reproduced as

under:-

Issue No.1: Whether the suit is not maintainable becauseof the provisions of order 2 rule 2 CPC asalleged in the preliminary objection no.2 in theWS? OPD

Issue No.2: Whether the suit is not valued properly asalleged in the preliminary objection no.6 of theWS? OPD

Issue No.3: Whether the suit is not maintainable becausethe tenancy of the defendant has not beenterminated as per the provisions of Transfer ofProperty Act, if not so, its effect? OPD

Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief ofpossession as claimed for? OPP

Issue No.5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesneprofits, if so, at what rate and for what period?OPP

Issue No.6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief ofpermanent injunction as claimed for? OPP

Issue No.7: Whether the defendant is entitled to theprotection under section 53A Transfer of

Property Act? OPD

Issue NO.8: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

Issue No.9: Whether the suit is liable to be stayed underSection 10 CPC? OPD

Issue No.10: Relief

15. That in suit No.301/11/02 filed by the respondent

herein for Specific Performance of the alleged

Agreement to Sell dated 24.01.1989 the Ld. Trial Court

was pleased to frame the following issues:-


16/30

1. Whether the suit is barred by time under the limitationAct? OPD

2. Whether the suit is not valued for the purpose of courtfee and jurisdiction Act? OPD

3. Whether the agreement to sell dated 24.1.89 in favourof the plaint is a forged and fabricated document inview of preliminary objection no.6 of the WS? OPD

4. Whether the agreement to sell dated 24.1.89 is void

and cannot be enforced in view of the preliminaryobjection no.11 of the WS? OPD

5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of causeof action? OPD

7. Whether the registered Sale Deeds dated 5.6.96 infavour of defendant no.2 and 3 are illegal and invalid.

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deedexecuted , signed and duly registered in his favour bythe defendant no.1 allowing the plaintiff to pay thebalance amount of Rs.9 Lacs in favour of defendantno.1 in respect of property bearing No.B-4/6, VasantVihar, New Delhi? OPP

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration thatthe sale deed dated 05.06.1996 executed by thedefendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and 3 is

illegal, invalid and not binding against the plaintiff inrespect of property bearing No.B-4/6, Vasant Vihar,New Delhi? OPP

10. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?OPP

11. Relief.

16. That both the aforesaid suits were consolidated for the

purposes of recording evidence vide order dated

27.10.2006 passed in suit no. 295/2011/2006. A copy of

the said order dated 27.10.2006 is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure A-17.


17/30

17. That in the common evidence recorded before the Ld.

Trial Court, the following witnesses were examined by

the parties:-

PW-1 Shri D.S. Sodhi (respondent herein)

PW-2 Shri S.K. Govil (witness of the respondent herein)

PW-3 Shri Raj Kumar Garg (witness of the respondentherein)

PW-4 Shri Devak Ram (witness of the respondent

herein)

D1W1: Smt. Vathsala Chandroo (the defendant no.1 insuit No.301/11/02)

D1W2: Head Constable Kishan Chand (witness ofdefendant no.1 in suit no.301/11/02)

D1W3: Shri V.C. Mishra (witness of defendant no.1 insuit no.301/11/02)

D2W1: Shri Homender Arora (appellant no.2 herein)

The evidence (examination in chief and cross

examination) of PW-1 Shri D.S. Sodhi is annexed


The evidence (examination in chief and cross

examination)of PW-2 Shri S.K. Govil is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure A-19.


18/30


19/30

18. That by means of the impugned judgment and decree

dated 08.11.2013 the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to

dismiss the suit for Possession filed by the appellants

inter-alia holding that the tenancy of the respondent has

not been validly terminated.

19. That the Ld. Trial Court vide judgment and decree

dated 27.07.2013 was further pleased to dismiss the suit

for specific performance filed by the respondent herein. A

certified copy of the judgment and decree dated

27.07.2013 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in suit

no.295/11/02 is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure-A-26.

20. That the parties proved on record several documents

which are listed as under:-

A. Documents proved by Respondent Mr. D.S. Sodhi.

S.No.

ExhibitNo.

Description ofdocument

Annexureof presentAppeal

1. PW1/1 Agreement dated14.02.1984.

A-28

2. PW1/2 Lease Deed dated01.10.1980.

A-6

3. PW1/3 Special Power ofAttorney dated14.02.1984.

A-29


20/30

4. PW1/4 Letter of 1983. Not filed.

5. PW1/5 Letter dated04.07.1983.

Not filed.


Not filed.


Not filed.


Not filed.

9. PW1/9 Pronote dated01.03.1973.

Not filed.

10. PW1/10 Perpetual Sub-LeaseDeed.

A-4

11. PW1/11 Agreement dated08.11.1968. A-30

12. PW1/11A Agreement to Selldated 24.01.1989.

A-10

13. PW1/12 Telephone Bill. Not filed.

14. PW1/13 First Running Bill ofSh. Raj Kumar Garg.

Not filed.

15. PW1/14 Bill of Sh. KanhaiyaLal Yadav.

Not filed.

16. PW1/15 Notice dated22.01.2002 (wronglytyped as 22.01.2001).

A-7

17. PW1/16 Reply dated06.02.2002.

A-8

18. PW1/17 Rejoinder dated08.04.2002.

A-9

19. PW1/18to 22

Postal Records. Not filed.

20. PW4/1 Report of Sh. DevakRam.

Not filed.


21/30

B. Documents proved by Appellants/purchasers of

the property/ Plaintiff in the suit.

S.No.

ExhibitNo.

Description ofdocument

Annexureof presentAppeal

1. D2W1/3 Sale Deed dated05.06.1996 in favourof Smt. Asha Arora.

A-2

2. D2W1/4 Sale Deed dated05.06.1996 in favourof Sh. Homender

Arora.

A-3

3. DW1/W3/1 Report of Sh. V.C.

Mishra, HandwritingExpert.

Not filed.

C. Documents proved by Mrs. Vathsala Chandroo,

the original owner.

S.No.

Exhibit No. Description ofdocument

Annexureof present

Appeal

1. D1W1/1 Site Plan. A-31

2. D1W1/2=D2W1/1 GPA in favourof Sh. Yog Raj

Arora.

A-32

3. D1W1/3 GPA in favourof Sh.

HomenderArora

A-33

4. D1W1/4=D2W1/2 ConveyanceDeed dated07.10.1994.

A-5

5. D1W1/5 Complaint dated27.08.1994 tothe police.

Not filed.


22/30

6. D1W1/6=DW1/9 Public notice inthe newspaperThe PioneerEdition dated04.10.1994.

Not filed.

7. D1W1/7 General Powerof Attorney infavour of Sh.Rajiv

Manchanda.

A-34

8. DW1/4 Complaint dated24.04.1989 to

ACP.

Not filed.

9. DW1/5 Complaint toSHO.

Not filed.

10. DW1/6 Complaint to

SHO, VasantVihar.

Not filed.

11. DW1/7 SPA in favour ofSh. Dinesh K.Maniam.

A-35

III. That the appellants challenge the legality and validity of the

impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013 inter-alia

on the following grounds:-

GROUNDS

A. Because the impugned judgment and decree dated

08.11.2013 as passed by the Ld. Trial Court is totally bad

and illegal on the facts of the case and in view of the law

involved and as such the same is liable to be set-aside

by this Honble Court in exercise of its Appellate

Jurisdiction.


23/30

B. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in

holding that the appellants have not validly determined

and terminated the tenancy of the respondent herein.

Though the Ld. Trial Court has rightly appreciated that

filing of the suit in itself is a notice under Section 106 of

Transfer of Property Act and no prior notice is required.

However, still the Ld. Trial Court has held that the

tenancy of the respondent has not been validly

terminated merely on the ground that in the plaint of the

appellants it was stated that the respondent herein was a

tenant in respect of the Ground Floor only and was

unauthorized occupant in respect of the First Floor. Once

it has been held by the Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned

judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013 that the

respondent was not only a tenant in respect of the

Ground Floor of the suit property but also in respect of

the upper Floor, the Ld. Trial Court ought to have held

that the tenancy of the entire premises stood determined

and terminated by presenting the plaint before the Ld.

Trial Court by the appellants herein (particularly when in

the plaint the possession of the entire property has been

sought for and not merely for the Ground Floor).


24/30

C. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in

holding that because the appellant alleged in the plaint

that the respondent was a tenant in respect of the

Ground Floor portion only so the tenancy of the

respondent can be terminated by filing of a plaint only in

respect of the Ground Floor and not in respect of the

First Floor which is held to be under the tenancy of the

respondent.

D. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in

not appreciating that the respondent had set-up his title

not in respect of the ground floor of the property but in

respect of the entire property. Once it has been held that

the respondent herein was a tenant in respect of the

entire property and in view of the fact that the respondent

claimed his ownership in respect of the entire property,

his tenancy stood determined and forfeited in view of

Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act in respect

of his entire tenancy. To held that tenancy only in respect

of Ground Floor stood terminated and not in respect of

the upper floor, is totally erroneous in law.

E. Because the Ld. Trial Court ought to have considered

that the notice of termination of tenancy is to be

construed liberally and not strictly. In the plaint of the


25/30

present proceedings (which has been treated to be a notice

of termination), the Appellants have sought possession

not only for ground floor but also for the first floor. A clear

demand of vacant physical possession of the entire

property has been made in the said plaint which

demonstrates the intention of the Plaintiffs/ Appellants

herein and which intention stood communicated to the

Respondent. All the requirements of law stood complied

with when the Respondent became aware of this

intention of the Appellants that the possession of the

entire property in question has been sought for.

F. Because the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in

making minute scrutiny of the plaint and to hold that the

tenancy of the Respondent in respect of the ground floor

only stood determined and terminated. The Ld. Trial

Court ought to have held that the tenancy in respect of

the entire property stood determined and terminated.

G. Because there are other numerous grounds considering

which the impugned judgment and decree dated

08.11.2013 is liable to be set-aside. The appellants

reserve their right to urge all such grounds at the time of

oral hearing before this Honble Court.


26/30

IV. That the appellants have not filed any other appeal against

the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013

before this Honble Court or before any other Court.

V. That the annexures annexed to the present appeal are the

true copies of their respective originals.

VI. That the present appeal is being filed within the period of

limitation and there is no delay on the part of the appellants

in filing the present appeal.

VII. That there is connected appeal in between the parties being

RFA No.482/2013 titled as Shri D.S. Sodhi Vs. Vathsala

Chandroo & Ors, which is pending disposal before this

Honble Court and is fixed for hearing on 10.12.2013. The

said appeal is arising from the impugned judgment and

decree dated 27.07.2013 which was passed by the Ld. Trial

Court in a suit for Specific Performance (being suit

no.301/2011) filed by the respondent herein against the

predecessor-in-interest of the appellants namely Smt.

Vathsala Chandroo and the appellants herein. By means of

the said judgment and decree dated 27.07.2013 the Ld.

Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit for Specific

Performance of the respondent herein. A true copy of the


27/30

order dated 10.10.2013 passed in RFA No.482/2013 is


PRAYER

In the aforesaid premises, it is most humbly prayed that this

Honble Court may kindly be pleased to:-

(a) set aside the impugned Judgment and decree dated

08.11.2013 passed by the Ld. Court of Shri Rajesh Kumar

Singh, Additional District Judge-5, Central District, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.S. No.295/2011;

(b) decree the suit for Possession filed by the appellants herein

against the respondent herein thereby passing a decree of

Possession in respect of the entire property and premises

bearing Municipal No.B-4/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-

110057;

(c) decree the suit of the appellants for the relief of Mesne

Profits and Permanent Injunction in terms of prayer (b) and

(c) in the plaint of the appellants herein.

(d) award costs of the proceedings of the present appeal as

well as of the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court in

favour of the appellants; and


28/30

(e) pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

It is prayed accordingly.

APPELLANTS

NEW DELHI THROUGHDATED:

(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANTS

A-26, LGF, JANGPURA EXTENSIONNEW DELHI-110014

MOB: [email protected]

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of November, 2013 that the

facts stated in our aforesaid appeal are true and correct to our

knowledge and the legal submissions made in the aforesaid

appeal are true and correct on the basis of the legal information

received and believed to be correct. Last para is prayer to this

Honble Court.

APPELLANTS


29/30


30/30