TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (4) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for possession, permanent injunction, recovery of original documents, damages, mesne profits with interest and costs. The parties are related to each other. In fact the defendant No. 1 is real brother of the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 is wife of defendant No. 1 and defendants 3 and 4 are the children of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff claims that he is the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the first and second floors of the property bearing Municipal No. E-182, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit property') which comprised of five bedrooms with attached bathrooms drawing-cum-dining hall, lounges on both floor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty defendants became greedy and developed illegal designs of grabbing the suit property. Accordingly the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the premises and even served legal notice dated 7th February, 1997 to this effect. The defendants did not do so although on termination of license by notice dated 7th February, 1997 they became unauthorised occupants and trespassers in the suit property. It is further alleged in the plaint that after the receipt of the quit notice the defendant No. 1 illegally and surreptitiously on or before 15th February, 1997 removed the three original sale deeds dated 4th March, 8th March and 18th March, 1994 executed by Smt. Sushila Ramchandani in favor of the plaintiff in respect of suit property from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an amount of Rs. 8,40,000/- as total sale consideration by three cheques dated 18th March, 1996 and 4th April, 1996. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff had purchased the property at Chittaranjan Park out of the aforesaid amount given by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff in these circumstances filed the instant suit for possession etc. 3. As is obvious from the replies given by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff's notices in the written statement, the stand of the defendants is that the defendant No. 1 has purchased the property in question for Rs. 8,40,000/- for which three cheques of Rs. 2,80,000/- each have been given. It is further stated that the agreement to sell was oral and the defendants did not insist on agreement in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heques which were three in number. It was submitted that the plaintiff had purchased the three portions comprising suit property at Rs. 1,90,000/- and the defendant No. 1, being his brother, agreed to give him Rs. 2,80,000/- for each portion. It is out of these funds that the plaintiff purchased the property at Chittaranjan Park. The defendant No. 1 even purchased three stamps papers of the value of Rs. 24,200/- each for the purpose of executing the sale deed by the plaintiff. The stamps papers were purchased on 8th April, 1996. The defendant No. 1 even constructed the second floor and is paying the house tax. 5. The plaintiff has not denied the receipt of the three cheques of Rs. 2,80,000/- each. However, he alleges that the amount repres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further direction of the Court." 7. This rule would be applicable only when there is admission on the part of the defendants of the nature which would constitute sufficient admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Rule 10 of Order XXXIX does not apply unless- (A) The admission of the party is an admission sufficient under 0.12 R.6 AIR 1927 Sind 25. (B) The party making the admission "holds" the property or other things capable of deliver (1903) 27 Mad 168. 8. The first thing which the plaintiff has to show, prima facie, that the defendants are in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the suit property in question. Although the plaintiff claims that he continues to be the owner of the property, the claim of the defendants is that the pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were normal and the defendants could not foresee that any such notice would be given by the plaintiff in future. Further the defendants carried out the construction on the second floor as well which in normal course the plaintiff would not have allowed. the defendant no. 1 is even paying the house tax of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 has even filed a suit for specific performance (Suit No. 1176/99) which is pending in this court. In view of the circumstances mentioned above and in view of their being serious disputes about the ownership of the property, at this stage it would be difficult to give a direction under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC. 9. The judgment cited by the plaintiff is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the ....