Delhi District Court
Bala Devi vs Anjana on 16 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI, ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JSCC-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS SCJ : 112/2017
CNR NO. DLSW030020222016
Bala Devi
w/o Sh. Mahavir
r/o House No. A-46,
Tara Nagar, Kakrola,
New Delhi. ........Plaintiff
Versus
Anjana
w/o Sh. Gyanender Dev ..........Defendant
r/o House No. A-24,
Tara Nagar, Kakrola,
New Delhi.
Date of institution : 24.12.2016
Arguments heard on : 07.03.2022
Date of decision : 16.03.2022
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are:−
1. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner of suit property bearing house number A - 24, Tara Nagar, Kakrola, New Delhi, having purchased it from the previous owner in the year 1996. The defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. It is stated that the son of the plaintiff namely Sh. Gyanender is residing separately from the defendant. It is stated that the behaviour of the defendant has been rude and harsh towards the plaintiff and her family since the very beginning. It is stated that because the defendant did not mend her ways, the plaintiff separated CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 1/14 the defendant and Sh. Gyanender on 07.05.2010 to avoid any further mental stress. It is stated that out of natural love and affection for the son and the daughter-in-law, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to reside at the suit property. It is stated that the plaintiff and her family members have severed all relations with Sh. Gyanender and the defendant. It is stated that the defendant filed false cases under Section 498A IPC and under Section 12 of PWDV Act against the plaintiff and her family. It is stated that the plaintiff had earlier also filed a suit for permanent injunction etc twice against Shri Gyanender and the defendant but later with the intervention of well-wishers, the issues were sorted out and the plaintiff withdrew her suits and permitted the defendant to reside in the suit property. It is stated that despite this, the defendant did not mend her ways and on 11.12.2016 she met a local property dealer to sell the suit property. It is stated that on the same day the said property dealer contacted the husband of the plaintiff and enquired about the sale price of the suit property and it is then that the plaintiff came to know about the intentions of the defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff and her husband asked the defendant about this but the defendant abused them in filthy language. It is stated that the plaintiff and her husband asked the defendant to vacate the suit property within a week but she flatly refused and demanded Rs.15 lakhs for the same. It is stated that the plaintiff has no source of income and the husband of the plaintiff receives a meagre pension which is insufficient to run the household. It is stated that if the suit property is vacated by the defendant, the same can be let out for an additional source of income. Hence the present suit has been filed seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the suit property and handover the peaceful possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering/disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property.
2. The defendant filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff is trying to reap the benefits of her own wrongs since she along with her family members have treated the defendant with cruelty. It is stated that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the Court. It is stated that the plaintiff had earlier filed a civil suit CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 2/14 bearing CS No. 56/2012 titled as "Smt. Bala Devi vs Gyanendra Dev and Anr"
which she withdrew on 22.04.2013 after a settlement was arrived at between the defendant and her husband on 20.04.2013. It is stated that as per the settlement, the defendant was to reside in the suit property. It is stated that several litigations were going on between the parties including the suit of the plaintiff, a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the defendant, a divorce petition filed by Sh. Gyanender, a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C, an application under section 12 of PWDV Act, one FIR bearing No. 53/11 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Najafgarh. It is stated that after the matter was settled, all the cases were withdrawn. It is stated that after the quashing petition of the said FIR was signed on 20.08.2014, the plaintiff filed another suit bearing CS No. 218/2014 titled as "Smt. Bala Devi Vs Gyanender and Anr" on the same facts and grounds as the previous suit. It is stated that after the defendant received the summons of the said suit, she filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 4 CPC on 04.07.2015 raising an issue on the maintainability of the suit. It is stated that on 30.10.2015, the plaintiff withdrew the second suit also without pressing for any liberty to file a fresh suit. It is stated that later the FIR was partly quashed, that is, qua the plaintiff and some other family members who were present before the Court on the basis of the settlement. It is stated that later another petition was filed for quashing the FIR qua remaining accused but the same was dismissed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.11.2016. It is stated that after the dismissal of the quashing petition, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 23.12.2016 on the same facts as the earlier two suits, except that she has also stated about a new fake date to create a cause of action. It is stated that the conduct of the plaintiff shows her malafide intention and ulterior motive to oust the defendant from her matrimonial/shared household, where the defendant is residing with her minor son. It is stated that the defendant is not getting any economic support from Sh. Gyanender who is gainfully employed in a multinational company and that he is residing with another woman. It is stated that the present suit is not maintainable under Order XXIII Rule 4 CPC. It is stated that the defendant has been subjected to humiliation and assaults by the plaintiff and her CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 3/14 family members. It is stated that after the withdrawal of cases by the defendant, the plaintiff and her family members gave severe beatings to the defendant on the night of 10/11.06.2015 to compel her to vacate the suit property. It is stated that the defendant reported the matter to police and her MLC was also conducted. It is stated that after this incident, the defendant was constrained to file a new application under Section 12 of PWDV Act. It is stated that the plaintiff is in collusion with Sh. Gyanender who is still residing with the plaintiff and the other woman. It is stated that Sh. Gyanender has deserted and neglected the defendant and her minor son. It is stated that the plaintiff has never disowned the defendant at any point in time, while she has disowned Sh. Gyanender on 07.05.2010. It is stated that the plaintiff has mentioned a false date of 11.12.2016 only to create a fresh cause of action for filing the present suit since the present suit is nothing but a repetition of the previously filed suits. It is stated that the defendant has never thought of grabbing the suit property or creating any third party interest over the suit property and she is ready to give her undertaking for the same. It is stated that the husband of the plaintiff is getting a pension of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month and both the sons of the plaintiff are also gainfully employed. It is stated that the plaintiff and the family members are living lavishly in a joint family. It is stated that the suit property is the matrimonial house of the defendant as she is residing there with her minor child. It is stated that Sh. Gyanender has deserted the defendant at the instigation of the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff filed a replication reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the averments made in the written statement.
4. Vide order dated 02.08.2018, the following issues were framed:
"(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction in their favour and against the defendant, as prayed for? (OPP)
(ii) Relief."
5. The plaintiff examined two witnesses in her support of her case:
5.1 PW1 Smt. Bala Devi entered the witness box on 06.10.2018 and tendered her affidavit Ex PW1/A in evidence. She relied on Mark A which is a photocopy of CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 4/14 her Aadhaar card and Ex PW1/2 (endorsed as 'Mark B') which are the copies of chain of documents of the suit property.
In her cross-examination, she stated that her son Sh. Gyanender was educated up to the 8th standard. She stated that he started earning in the year 2008, after his marriage and that he did not have any permanent job. She stated that the defendant was residing in the suit property since the year 2010. She stated that her elder son was working as mistri/doing repair work and that he was unemployed at the time of her testimony. She stated that her elder daughter-in-law was employed in a hospital. She stated that she did not know where Sh. Gyanender was residing. She admitted that she was residing at house number A-46, Tara Nagar, which was a two-storey built-up property. She also stated that house number A-46 was in her name or in the name of her mother. She stated that she had withdrawn the previous suit bearing CS No. 218/14 after the settlement. She admitted that as per the settlement, both sides were to withdraw all the litigations filed by them. She stated that FIR No. 83/11 PS Najafgarh was quashed qua her and some other family members. She relied on the copy of the FIR as Ex PW1/D1. She admitted that she had filed the present suit after getting the FIR quashed. She admitted that in the year 2016 the suit property had got partly damaged due to a truck and the same was got repaired by the defendant. She admitted that she had filed the present suit because there was a dispute between Sh. Gyanender and the defendant.
The plaintiff admitted the record of prior Court proceedings as Ex A-1. 5.2 PW2 Shri Mahavir entered the witness box on 16.02.2019 and tendered his affidavit Ex PW2/A in evidence.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he was drawing a pension of Rs.20,000/- per month. He stated that his elder son working with a Thekedar. He admitted that his elder son and his family were residing with him at house number A-46. He did not remember the name of the property dealer who had approached him. He stated that before filing the present suit, two other suits were filed against the defendant by his wife and the same were withdrawn after a settlement. He admitted that in the year 2016 property had been partly damaged due to the truck CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 5/14 and the same was got repaired by the defendant. He stated that the present suit had been filed because there was a dispute between the defendant and Sh. Gyanender.
6. The defendant entered the witness box as DW1 in support of her case. She tendered her affidavit Ex DW1/A in evidence.
In her cross-examination, she admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. She stated that she was not divorced and no petition for divorce was pending.
7. I have heard Sh. Umesh Yadav, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. M.C. Premi, Ld Counsel for the defendant and have perused the record.
8. Issue wise findings are as under:
8.1 "(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction in their favour and against the defendant, as prayed for? (OPP)"
8.1.1. The plaintiff has deposed on oath and has relied on notarised documents Ex PW1/2 (endorsed as 'Mark B') to state that the suit property belongs to her. The defendant has also admitted in her cross-examination that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no dispute over the ownership of the suit property; it rests with the plaintiff.
8.1.2. The plaintiff has deposed that the defendant was permitted to reside in the suit property because she is her daughter-in-law and they could not reside peacefully under one roof. However, now the plaintiff seeks the eviction of the defendant basically on two grounds: that the defendant is trying to sell the suit property, and that the suit property can be let out for rent to generate income. 8.1.3. It is the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff had earlier filed two civil suits claiming the same relief - eviction of the defendant from the suit property. Both these suits were withdrawn unconditionally. The first suit was withdrawn on 22.04.2013 and the second suit was withdrawn on 30.10.2015. The only new cause of action that the plaintiff has brought out, in this case, is the allegation that the defendant had approached a property dealer on 11.12.2016 to sell the suit property at throw-away prices.
8.1.4. It is interesting to note the chronology of the three civil suits of the plaintiff.CS No. 112/2017
Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 6/14 The first suit was filed in the year 2012 and was withdrawn on 24.04.2013 because the parties had settled their disputes on 20.04.2013 and had agreed to withdraw all their respective cases. This was not a settlement where the defendant and her husband had decided to part ways but it was one of reconciliation; it was decided that the defendant would continue to reside in the suit property with Sh. Gyanender.
After this settlement, the plaintiff even got a quashing petition of FIR No. 83/11 PS Najafgarh signed in August 2014 on the basis of this settlement but soon enough on 12.09.2014, the plaintiff filed the second suit for eviction against the defendant. The plaint is absolutely silent as to what transpired in one month that compelled the plaintiff to file the second suit.
Subsequently, even the second suit was withdrawn on 30.10.2015, but not on the basis of any settlement. The reason why it was withdrawn is not known. The plaintiff has incorrectly mentioned in the plaint and affidavit Ex PW1/A that the second suit was withdrawn on the basis of a settlement. Ex A-1 shows that it was simplicitor withdrawal.
Later after the FIR was quashed qua the plaintiff and some other family members, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant seeking the same relief.
The reason for discussing the prior two suits is not just to see whether the third suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC but also to highlight the conduct of the plaintiff. After all, the relief of injunction is an equitable relief. A party who seeks grant of an injunction must satisfy the Court that his/her dealing of the matter has been fair, honest and free of any fraud or illegality. The crafty manner in which suits were filed and withdrawn shows that the plaintiff availed the benefits of the settlement and then took a u-turn to the disadvantage of the defendant. There is no explanation whatsoever why the second suit was filed and later withdrawn. The conduct of the plaintiff appears to be such as to disentitle her to the assistance of the Court and no injunction can be granted under Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act.CS No. 112/2017
Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 7/14 8.1.5. The new cause of action for this suit is the incident of 11.12.2016. The plaintiff/PW1 and her husband/PW2 have deposed that the defendant had approached a local property dealer and that this property dealer told them about it. The best person to prove this contention was the property dealer himself, but the property dealer has not been examined in evidence. So much so, the plaintiff and her husband have not even named the 'local' property dealer either in the plaint or during the cross-examination, when a specific question was put. PW1 and PW2 have also not deposed that the defendant ever admitted that she indeed had enquired from a local property dealer. Therefore, the contention that the defendant had approached a local property dealer is at best a hearsay and is not proved. 8.1.6. Moreover, the gravity of the apprehension of the plaintiff can be gauged from the fact that she did not file any application seeking an interim injunction against the sale of the suit property in this case. No injunction was ever granted and in a span of almost 5.5 years, the defendant has not sold or attempted to sell the suit property. Rather she has undertaken in her written statement that she never intends to do so.
8.1.7 Therefore, by preponderance of probabilities it does not appear that any such incident of 11.12.2016 really took place. It appears that the defendant has rightly contended that this incident has been mentioned only to escape the issue of maintainability which had been raised by the defendant in the second suit. The 'fresh' cause of action is only an illusion and consequently, the present suit is also barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC since the earlier suits were based on the same cause of action and had been withdrawn without seeking the permission to file a fresh suit.
8.1.8. The second reason given by the plaintiff is that the suit property can be let out to generate additional income to support her family. Certainly, as an owner of the suit property the plaintiff is entitled to reap benefits from it. However, the rights of the plaintiff as an owner of the suit property have to be balanced with the rights of the defendant who is residing in the suit property in the capacity of a daughter- in-law of the plaintiff.CS No. 112/2017
Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 8/14 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja cited at (2021)1 SCC 414 wherein it was observed that:
"69. .....The definition of shared household as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate that a shared household shall be one which belongs to or taken on rent by the husband. We have noticed the definition of "respondent" under the Act. The respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household.
....89. Now, coming back again to the facts of the present case, there being specific pleading on behalf of the respondent that the house, which is in the name of the appellant is the matrimonial home of the respondent where she was residing in first floor since her marriage. The fact that respondent is residing in first floor of the premises is not matter of dispute. Even if the house is in the name of the appellant and that even if we accept the case of the appellant that appellant's son Raveen has no share in the house belonging to appellant, with whom the respondent was living in the domestic relationship, whether the respondent is entitled to reside in the premises in question as shared household is the question to be answered. In the impugned judgment, Delhi High Court has refrained from deciding the point as to whether suit property is a shared household on the ground that the application filed under Section 12 of Act, 2005 by the respondent is pending. In the suit filed by the appellant where respondent has pleaded and claimed that it is shared household and she has right to live and it was on that ground she was resisting the suit for mandatory injunction, the question that whether the suit property is a shared household or not becomes relevant and necessary and the said issue cannot be skipped on the ground that application under D.V. Act is pending. In the regular suit, which has been filed by the appellant, the plea of defendant that suit property is her shared household and she has right to residence could have been very well gone into by virtue of Section 26, which we shall further deal a little later.
90. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. ...."
...111. As noted above, one of the conditions to treat a person as CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 9/14 a respondent is that "against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act". The defendant in her pleadings having claimed that she has right of residence in the suit property, she for successful resisting the suit has to plead and prove that she has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent, which is implicit in the definition of the aggrieved person itself as given in the Section 2(a) of the Act, 2005. It is, further, relevant to notice that although learned Magistrate passed an interim order in the application filed by the defendant under Section 12 on 26.11.2016 but said order was interim order which was passed on the satisfaction of the Magistrate that "the application prima facie disclosed that the respondent is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence". For granting any relief by the Civil Court under Section 19 it has to be proved that the respondent is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence on the aggrieved person. To treat a person as the "respondent" for purposes of Section 2(q) it has to be proved that person arrayed as respondent has committed an act of domestic violence on the aggrieved person.
112. We, thus, are of the view that for the purposes of determination of right of defendant under Sections 17 and 19 read with Section 26 in the suit in question the plaintiff can be treated as "respondent", but for the grant of any relief to the defendant or for successful resisting the suit of the plaintiff necessary conditions for grant of relief as prescribed under the Act, 2005 has to be pleaded and proved by the defendant, only then the relief can be granted by the Civil Court to the defendant.
(Emphasis supplied) 8.1.9. Admittedly, the suit property is the matrimonial house of the defendant wherein she is residing since the year 2010 with her child. The first suit filed by the plaintiff had been withdrawn after the parties mutually agreed that the defendant would continue to reside at the suit property with her husband and child. The marriage of the defendant and Sh. Gyanender is subsisting. It is also admitted that in the year 2016 when the suit property was damaged in an accident, the repairs were got done by the defendant. Thus the status of the defendant in the suit property is more than that of a gratuitous licensee; the suit property is the shared household of the defendant. Resultantly, before deciding the issue of eviction of the defendant, this Court has to bear in mind that the defendant can also have a legal right of residence in the suit property by virtue of Section 17 r/w 19 of the PWDV CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 10/14 Act.
8.1.10. As per the mandate of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra), the defendant had to show that not only is the suit property her matrimonial house but also that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the plaintiff. In this regard, the defendant has deposed on oath that she was subjected to harassment and torture by the plaintiff and other in-laws. The defendant has also deposed that after the cases were withdrawn, she was subjected to severe beatings by the plaintiff and other in-laws on the intervening night of 10/11.06.2015. The plaintiff did not cross-examine the defendant over these allegations; even a negative suggestion was not put to DW1/defendant.
Moreover, the repeated filing of civil suits to evict the defendant and her minor child from the suit property, despite there being a settlement between the parties and especially after the plaintiff had got the FIR quashed on the basis of the settlement, only goes to show that the plaintiff has caused immense mental harassment to the defendant. The suits for eviction must have hung over the head of the defendant like a Damocles' Sword; the fear of not knowing what will happen to the defendant and her minor child, who had already been deserted by the son of the plaintiff must have caused great anxiety to her. This itself constitutes emotional and economic abuse of the defendant within the meaning of "domestic violence" under Section 3 of the PWDV Act.
8.1.11. In view of these facts, it is clear that the defendant is entitled to resist the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of her rights under Section 17 r/w 19 r/w 26 of the PWDV Act.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment in the case of Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha and Another cited at 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11530 which guides the further course of action to be followed in such-like cases. In the said judgment Hon'ble Delhi High Court had observed that :
"58. However, later decisions of various High Courts have, while giving divergent opinions on the concept of 'shared household', followed one uniform pattern in order to protect the daughter-in-law and to provide for a dignified roof/shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 11/14 providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-law i.e., the son. Some broad guidelines as set out below, can be followed by Courts in order to strike a balance between the PSC Act and the DV Act:
1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son's/daughter's family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son-in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.
6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son's family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
8.1.12. It stands established from the admissions of PW1 and PW2 that the defendant is living in the suit property as part of their family. It is admitted by the plaintiff that her son Sh. Gyanender is not residing with the defendant. The wide range of litigations between the parties (which included a divorce petition, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, one FIR u/s 498A IPC) shows that the relationship between the plaintiff & the defendant, and the relationship between Sh. Gyanender & the defendant are acrimonious.
8.1.13. Further, the plaintiff and PW2 have both admitted that while the earlier two CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 12/14 suits were filed against the defendant as well as Sh. Gyanender, the present suit has been against the defendant only. There is no explanation why.
It is the case of the plaintiff that she has disowned her son Sh Gyanender because the defendant did not want anything to do with her; not because of Sh. Gyanender. There is not a single averment that the plaintiff has any grievance against Sh. Gyanender. It is also interesting to note that while the plaintiff claimed she did not know the whereabouts of her son Sh. Gyanender, she did not hesitate in stating that he was unemployed. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff is well in touch with Sh. Gyanender. The relationship between the parents (PW1 and PW2) and the son (Sh. Gyanender) is certainly peaceful even if it is believed that they are not in collusion with each other.
8.1.14. In such cases, as per Vinay Varma (supra) the obligation to provide for shelter for the defendant would remain both upon the husband and the in-laws, including the plaintiff.
8.1.15. Usually, in cases where the in-laws and the daughter-in-law are residing in the same premises, the in-laws would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter- in-law from their property after providing an alternative reasonable accommodation to her. However, this is not a case where the in-laws are residing with the daughter- in-law under the same roof with constant bickering and stressful environment caused by matrimonial discord. The plaintiff and her husband are residing at a different self-owned property, and the defendant is residing with her minor child at the suit property.
It is also pertinent to point out that during their cross-examination, PW1 and PW2 have both admitted that the reason for filing the present suit against the defendant was that she was in dispute with Sh. Gyanender. In other words, had there been no such dispute, they would have had no problem with the defendant staying at the suit property. The plea of bonafide requirement is, therefore, only a facade to evict the defendant.
8.1.16. Therefore, in light of the observation in the case of Vinay Varma (supra), it is also the obligation of the plaintiff to provide for adequate residence to the CS No. 112/2017 Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 13/14 defendant and there is no reason why the defendant should be evicted from the suit property.
8.1.17. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction in her favour and against the defendant.
This issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
8.2 "(ii) Relief."
The plaintiff had also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering/disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. No separate issue was framed on this prayer clause. Nevertheless, since the relief of mandatory injunction is declined, the relief of permanent injunction does not survive.
The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room. RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA GUSAIN
GUSAIN SOLANKI
Date: 2022.03.21
SOLANKI 16:00:47 +0530
Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki)
on 16th March 2022 JSCC/ASCJ/GJ:S-W:
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
CS No. 112/2017
Bala Devi vs. Anjana Page no. 14/14