JUDGEMENT
HARKESH MANUJA J. -
(1.)In the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 10/3/2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the judgment and decree dtd. 30/4/2016 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, has been reversed and a suit for possession by way of mandatory injunction, filed at the instance of respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs has been decreed.
(2.)The facts leading to the present case are that respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction along with prayer for permanent injunction stating therein that they had purchased the suit property i.e. House No.681, Sector 21-B, vide registered sale deed dtd. 8/6/2011 from respondent No.4 herein. It was further submitted that at the time of execution of sale deed, the possession of first and second floor was handed over to the respondents-plaintiffs, whereas the appellants remained in occupation of the ground floor as licensee. As per the plaint, the possession of ground floor was retained by the present appellants as licensee, with the promise that they shall vacate the same within a period of 4/5 months, as they were looking for rented accommodation for their own. It has been further submitted that despite repeated requests, the appellants did not hand over the possession of the ground floor, hence, a suit for mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction was filed.
(3.)On notice, the appellants being defendants No.1 to 4 filed their written statement stated therein that respondent No.4 herein had no right to sell the property in question to respondents No.1 to 3. It has been further submitted that in a family partition, the property in question fell into the share of late Ajay Bakshi (husband of appellant No.1).
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.