Akansha Rukhaiyar

Section C
20151324
TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.no CONTENT Page

Number

1. List of Dates 2
1. Plaint 3- 9

5. Annexure A 10-12

6. Annexure B 13

7. Annexure C 14

8. Annexure D 15

9. Annexure E 16
 2

LIST OF DATES

DATE EVENT
22.4.1980 Date of purchase of Premises by Plaintiff’s father
22.4.1981 Date of Defendants approaching Plaintiff’s father
30.4.1981 Date of contract between Plaintiff’s father and late Buddhu Singh
1.05.1981 Date of Possession of ground floor of Premise to Defendant No. 1 and late
Buddhu Singh
21.07.198 Plaintiff’s father Sandeep Negi died
1
30.7.1981 Defendants’ father Buddhu Singh died
14.08.198 First legal notice sent to Defendants
1
27.08.198 Second legal notice sent to Defendants
1
 3

IN THE COURT OF ________________

TIS HAZAARI DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
C.S. (OS) No. ____ of

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Meena Negi

D/o Late Mr. Sandeep Negi
R/o, 24/B, Bluebird Towers
Moti Nagar
New Delhi – 110015 ……….Plaintiff

Versus

1. Mr. Guddu Singh

S/o Late Mr. Buddhu Singh
R/o, 102, Moti Nagar
New Delhi – 110015

2. Mr. Chintu Singh

s/o Late Mr. Buddhu Singh
R/o, 102 Moti Nagar
New Delhi - 110015 …..Defendants

SUIT FOR POSSESSION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MESNE PROFIT

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the Plaintiff is a legal heir as daughter of Late Mr. Sandeep Negi. The Plaintiff is also
the co-owner of the premises bearing no. 60, Main Market Moti Nagar, New Delhi –
110015 (“Premises”). These Premises comprise the ground floor, first floor and second
floor. The Plaintiff’s father had purchased the said property vide registered sale deed
dates 22.4.1980 for the purpose of carrying taxi tourist services. The Plaintiff’s father
 4

was using the first and second floor of the Premises to run his tourist taxi business. The
registered sale deed is annexed along with the present plaint as Annexure- A.

2. That Defendant No. 1 and the father of Defendant No. 1 and 2, who was late Buddhu
Singh, approached the Plaintiff’s father on 22.4.1981 with their dire financial situation of
not being able to handle household expenses due to lack of a space to work. The
Plaintiff’s father decided to permit Defendant No. 1 and the Defendants’ father late
Buddhu Singh to use the shop on the ground floor of the Premises to earn their
livelihood by starting a beverage shop. Therefore, in order to approach the second floor
of the Premises, where the Plaintiff’s father operated his business, customers would
have to go through the ground floor of the Premises, where the business of the
Defendant No. 1 and the father late Buddhu Singh were located.

3. That the Plaintiff’s father and the Defendant No. 1’s father late Buddhu Singh entered
into a contract in pursuant to the legal arrangement mentioned above. According to the
contract, the Defendant No. 1 or other legal heirs of late Buddhu Singh would not be
allowed to claim any right on the shop in the ground floor of the Premises and would
vacate the shop as and when called upon by the Plaintiff’s father or his legal heirs.
Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 or the other legal heirs of late Buddhu Singh had to pay
the Plaintiff’s father Rs. 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand) on the first day of every calendar
month from the execution date of the contract for the entire term of the contract,
which was mutually decided as 3 (Three) years. The ground floor of the Premises could
be used by the Defendant No. 1 and other legal heirs of late Buddhu Singh only for the
purpose of running a beverage shop. The contract between late Buddhu Singh and the
Plaintiff’s father was finalized on 30.4.1981 and possession was given on 1.05.1981, as
per the contract. The contract between the Plaintiff’s father and late Buddhu Singh has
been annexed to the present plaint as Annexure – B.

4. That the Plaintiff’s father passed away on 21.07.1981, after which, the first and second
floor of the Premises were kept locked. The Plaintiff and the other legal heirs of the
Plaintiff’s father decided to not continue the business for a while and kept the first and
second floor of the Premises locked.

5. That late Buddhu Singh died on 30.7.1981, after which, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant
No. 2 started running the beverage shop business. Without taking permission from the
Plaintiff or any other legal heir of the Plaintiff’s father, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant
No. 2 stopped the business of the beverage shop and started a new business of
electronic repairs.

6. That on 1. 08. 1981, the Plaintiff tried to access the first and second floor of the
Premises to set up a new business as a means of livelihood for the Plaintiff’s family. The
Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 started creating hindrance in the ingress and
 5

egress of the upper floors of the Premises, which were erstwhile used for the business
of the Plaintiff’s father but were kept locked since his demise.

7. That the Defendants No. 1 and No. 2 continued to operate the electronic device repair
shop and continued the prevention of ingress and egress to the first and second floor of
the Premises despite repeated requests by the Petitioner.

8. That the Plaintiff and her sister issued a legal notice dated 14.08.1981 to Defendant No.
1 and Defendant No. 2 to discontinue the business and vacate the premises
immediately. Since the contract between the Plaintiff’s father and late Buddhu Singh
allowed for the usage of the ground floor of the Premises only for the business of a
beverage shop, operating an electronic repair shop from there was a violation of the
contract. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 were unlawfully
preventing the access by the legal heirs of the Plaintiff’s father to the first and second
floor of the Premises. These violations were mentioned in the legal notice as well. The
legal notice was sent to the residential address of Defendants No. 1 and No. 2 and has
been returned undelivered with remarks “house found locked” in a return memo dated
25.08. 1997 The legal notice and the return memo have been annexed as Annexure – C
and Annexure – D respectively.

9. That another legal notice was sent by the Plaintiff to Defendants No. 1 and No. 2, dated,
which despite being received on 30.08.1981, has not been replied to. This second legal
notice has been annexed as Annexure – E.

10. That in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the Plaintiff, being a
legal heir of Mr. Sandeep Negi, who was the legal owner of the Premises, has
undisputed ownership right over the Premises and also the right to enforce the contract
between her father and the late Buddhu Singh. Therefore, a cause of action with respect
to violation of contract arose on the day the Defendants No. 1 and 2 started using the
ground floor of the Premises for a purpose not included in the contract. Furthermore, by
preventing the legal heirs of the Premises to access the first and second floor of the
Premises 1.08.1981 and after, a second cause of action with respect to unlawful
possession arose. This cause of action is still continuing and subsisting.

11. That due to the blocking of access by Defendants No. 1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff has been
unable to establish a new business on the first and second floor of the Premises to earn
their livelihood. Despite being served two legal notices, the Defendants No. 1 and No. 2
have refused to handover the possession of the Premises.

12. That the Premises is situated in West Delhi and the Defendant No. 1 to 2 are also
residing in West Delhi, therefor this Hon’ble District Court has the territorial jurisdiction
to try and entertain the present Suit and grant the relief as prayed.
 6

13. That the value of the present Suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is duly
paid.

PRAYER :

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, it is
therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

(a) Pass a decree for return of peaceful possession of the Premises by the Defendants
No. 1 and No. 2 to the Plaintiff.

(b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendants whereby restraining the Defendants from conducting business on the
ground floor of the Premises.

(c) pass a decree of rendition of accounts in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant No.1 & 2 directing the Defendant No.1 and 2 to render all the
accounts in respect of the profit and revenue realized/ taken by them in respect
of the ground floor of the Premises in running their electronics device repair
business.

(d) Pass a decree for payment of damages by Defendants No. 1 and No. 2 for violation
of contract between Plaintiff’s father and late Buddhu Singh.

(e) Pass any other further relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

PLAINTIFF

THROUGH

(SCHRUTE & ASSOCIATES)

Counsel for the Petitioner
B 352, M block, GK – 1
New Delhi

DELHI
 7

Dated : 1.10. 1981

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this _____ day of October, 1981 that the contents of the Para 1 to 13
of the present suit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and the
same are based on the records maintained by the Plaintiff and the Prayer is believed to be
true by me as per legal advise received. The last para is the Prayer Clause of my suit.

DEPONENT
 8

IN THE TIS HAZAARI DISTRICT COURT

C.S.(OS) No. _____ of 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. Meena Negi ......Plaintiff

Versus

Mr. Guddu Singh and Ors. ….Defendants

AFFIDAVIT
I, Ms. Meena Negi, d/o Late Mr. Sandeep Negi aged about ___ years, R/o 24/B,
Bluebird Towers Moti Nagar do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above captioned suit and being well

conversant with the facts of the present case am competent to swear on the

present Affidavit.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying Plaint

from and affirm that the contents of the accompanying Plaint from 1 to 13

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The legal submissions

made therein are based on legal advice, which I believe to be correct and

that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 9

VERIFICATION:

I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of the above

affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and as per records and no part

of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at ____________ on this ____ day of October, 1981.

DEPONENT