Delhi District Court
Mrs. Ravinder Kaur vs Mr. Jaspreet Singh on 14 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV SINGH: CIVIL JUDGE
NORTH WEST: ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
C.S. No. 956/19
CNR No. DLNW03-001548-2019
Mrs. Ravinder Kaur
Aged about 70 years
W/o Lt. Sh. Inderjeet Singh Chana,
R/o HIG Flat bearing no. 405,
Naveen Apartments, Opp. Sainik Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034 .......Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Mr. Jaspreet Singh
S/o Lt. Sh. Inderjeet Singh Chana,
R/o HIG Flat bearing no. 405,
Naveen Apartments, Opp. Sainik Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034
2. Mrs. Manpreet Kaur
W/o Mr. Jaspreet Singh,
R/o HIG Flat bearing no. 405,
Naveen Apartments, Opp. Sainik Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034 ......Defendants
SUIT FOR PERMANENT, MANDATORY INJUNCTION
AND MESNE PROFITS/DAMAGES
Date of institution : 10.07.2019
Date of decision : 14.12.2022
Final Order : Partially decreed
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:-
1. The brief facts of the case are that defendant no. 1 is the son of the of the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 is the daughter in law. The plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the C.S. No. 956/19 1/8 property i.e., HIG Flat, bearing no. 405, Naveen Apartments, Oppo. Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") by way of a Conveyance Deed executed by DDA in favour of plaintiff.
1.1 The plaintiff is in possession of part premises of the suit property and the defendants are occupying the rest of the premises. The defendants got married in the year 2016 and since thereafter have been residing at the suit property as the licensees of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been aggrieved with the behaviour of the defendants towards her and due to which the plaintiff had asked the defendants to arrange their own accommodation and to vacate the suit premises, however, the defendants paid no heed to the request of the plaintiff. Police complaint has also been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. For a brief period, the defendants resided separately from the plaintiff, however, after April 2019, the defendants shifted back to the suit property. The plaintiff severed her social and other legal relations with the defendants by way of a public notice in the newspaper "The Sunday Express" on 19.02.2017. The plaintiff also got served a legal notice upon the defendants dated 25.05.2019 thereby terminating the license of the defendants to reside in the suit property, however, the defendants failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the present suit.
2. On being served, the defendants marked did not appear before the court and due to non filing of the WS within the time prescribed by law, the defence of the defendants was struck off vide order dated 09.10.2019 and the defendants were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 15.01.2020.
C.S. No. 956/19 2/8TRIAL:-
3. In plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 vide affidavit Ex. PW-1/X wherein he re-iterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/1 - Copy of Conveyance Deed dt. 08.04.2016; (2) Ex. PW1/2(OSR) - Copy of Aadhar Card; (3) Ex. PW1/3(OSR) - Copy of Death Certificate; (4) Ex. PW1/4(Colly) - Original Photographs; (5) Ex. PW1/5 - Original Site plan;
(6) Ex. PW1/6 - Copy of complaint dated 15.07.2018; (7) Ex. PW1/7 - Copy of newspaper "The Sunday Express dt. 19.12.2017(OSR);
(8) Ex. PW1/8 - Office copy of notice of demand dt. 25.05.2019; (9) Ex. PW1/9 to Ex. PW1/16 - Original postal records of the aforesaid notice;
(10) Ex. PW1/17 - Office copy of reminder dt. 15.06.2019; (11) Ex. PW1/18 to Ex. PW1/21 - Original postal records of the aforesaid reminder;
The witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the defendants as the defendants remained exparte during trial.
3.1 Sh. Sonu, Data Entry Operator, Sub-Registrar-VII, Vikas Sadan, INA, Delhi, was examined as PW-2 who duly proved conveyance deed dated 08.04.2019 executed by DDA in favour of Smt. Ravinder Kaur Ex. PW2/1(OSR).
Witness was not cross examined as Defendant is already Ex-parte.
C.S. No. 956/19 3/83.2 Constable Lucky, PS Rani Bagh, Delhi, was examined as PW-3(summoned witness) who duly proved the copy of the complaint which is already Ex. PW1/6.
Witness was not cross examined as Defendant is already Ex-parte.
Except above mentioned witnesses, no other witness was examined and PE stood closed on 01.06.2022.
4. I have heard the arguments and the record has also been perused.
FINDINGS:
5. The burden of proving his case was upon the plaintiff by virtue of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 5.1 It is pertinent to mention that the fact that plaintiff's evidence in ex-parte proceedings remained unchallenged and unrebutted does not mean that the case set up by her and the evidence adduced in support thereof would not be judicially scrutinized. The case set up by her and the supporting evidence has to be tried and tested on the touchstone of rules of evidence and the other laws, just like any other case. No adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants on the mere premise that they suffered the proceedings ex-parte. Decisions reported as Shiv Nandan Sachdeva (Sh.) vs. Smt. Ruby, 2009 V (Delhi) 55 and M. P. Narayan vs. Sm. Before Sudhadevi & Ors., AIR 1986 Cal. 256 can be referred to in this regard.
C.S. No. 956/19 4/86.1. PW1 has deposed that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and that the defendants are the licensee of the plaintiff. In her support, the plaintiff has relied upon Ex. PW1/1 which is a Conveyance Deed dated 08.04.2019, executed in favour of the plaintiff by DDA. The same has been duly proved by PW2 who was called as a witness from the office of Sub Registrar VII, Vikas Sadan, Delhi. Thus, the conveyance deed clearly proves the title of the plaintiff over the suit property.
6.2 The plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction qua the defendants thereby restraining them from creating any interference, obstruction and any type of nuisance in the use and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has deposed extensively qua the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff. PW1 has also deposed that due to behavior and callous attitude of the defendants the plaintiff has not been on speaking terms with the defendants. PW1 has also placed reliance upon Ex. PW1/6 which is the complaint filed by the plaintiff against the defendants where she requested the police to help the plaintiff in getting the suit property vacated by the defendants while also complaining about the harassment meted out to her by the defendants. Ex. PW1/6 has been duly proved by PW3 Ct. Lucky from PS Rani Bagh, Delhi. Further, the testimony of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
Thus, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, testimony of the plaintiff and material available on record, the relief of permanent injunction as sought above is hereby granted in favour of the plaintiff.
C.S. No. 956/19 5/86.3 The plaintiff has also sought the relief of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from parting with the possession of the suit property in favour of some third person.
Upon a perusal of the pleadings of the plaintiff, it is observed that there are no express pleadings regarding the same, and therefore, this relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
6.4 The plaintiff has also sought the relief of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to hand over the physical, vacant and peaceful possession of the portion of the suit property occupied by the defendants.
As discussed above, the plaintiff has been able to establish her title over the suit property. The defendants have failed to appear and thus there is no issue of any defence or contention being raised by the defendants before the court against the claim of the plaintiff.
The court is cognizant of the fact that the present matter involves the daughter in law of the plaintiff also who has been provided certain rights by law regarding her residence in the suit property. However, in the present matter, firstly the daughter in law/defendant has not appeared despite the service of summons to claim any of her rights and secondly there is nothing on record to show any dispute between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 which could entitle the defendant no.2 to claim her rights in the suit property independently of defendant no.1. Under such circumstances, the title of the plaintiff having been established, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction in her favour as claimed by her. I am supported in my reasons by C.S. No. 956/19 6/8 the judgment of "Aarti Sharma & Ors. vs. Ganga Saran"
decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24.08.2021(285(2021) DLT 206).
6.5 The plaintiff has also sought the relief of mesne profits/damages from the defendants, however, it is express from the pleadings and the deposition of the plaintiff that the defendants were the gratuitous licensees of the plaintiff and had been residing alongwith the plaintiff. It seems unlikely that the suit premises could have been let out on rent when the plaintiff herself had been residing at the suit property. Thus, the court finds no merits in the claim of mesne profits of the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
7. In view of the above discussion, suit of the plaintiff is hereby partially allowed and the following reliefs are passed in favour of the plaintiff:
(i) The defendants there are hereby restrained from creating any interference, obstruction and any type of nuisance for the use and enjoyment of the suit premises by the plaintiff.
(ii) The defendants are also directed to handover the physical, vacant and peaceful possession of the portions of the suit premises, i.e., HIG Flat bearing no. 405, Naveen Apartments, Opp. Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034, in which the defendants are residing, as specifically shown in the colour red and colour yellow in the site plan, to the plaintiff.
No order as to cost.
C.S. No. 956/19 7/8Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court today.
(Abhinav Singh) Civil Judge-N/W District Rohini Courts/14.12.2022 C.S. No. 956/19 8/8