Delhi District Court
Smt. Renu vs Sh. Ram Prakash on 7 November, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL, CIVIL JUDGE : DELHI
SUIT NO. 1110/06
Date of institution : 19.07.06
Judgment reserved on : 06.11.07
Judgment pronounced on : 07.11.07
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1.SMT. RENU D/O SH. MOHAN LAL, W/O SH. AJAY KUMAR R/O B-942, SHIV VIHAR, VIKAS NAGAR, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
2. KUMAR KUMKUM, D/O SH. AJAY KUMAR,
3. KUMAR NIDHI D/O SH. AJAY KUMAR, PLAINTIFFS NO. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS THROUGH THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PLAINTIFF NO. 1.
ALL R/O B-942, SHIV VIHAR, VIKAS NAGAR, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
.... PLAINTIFF VERSUS
1. SH. RAM PRAKASH S/O SH. BANEARI LAL
2. SH. AJAY KUMAR S/O SH. RAM PARKASH, BOTH R/O B-942, SHIV VIHAR, VIKAS NAGAR, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
.... DEFENDANT SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 2 EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose of the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff.
2. Facts in brief as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff no.1 was married to defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 1 is her mother in law. From the wedlock, plaintiff no. 2 & 3 were born. The marriage between the plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 2 was inter caste marriage. It is further averred that father of the plaintiff no. 1 gave sufficient dowry articles in the marriage. But the parents of the of the defendant no. 2 were not satisfied with the same. Parents of the defendant no. 2 always interfered in the matrimonial life of the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant no. 2. When the plaintiff no. 2 was at the advance stage of her pregnancy, she was sent to her parents house. Thereafter, plaintiff no. 2 i.e. female child was born on 25.05.01. But the defendants refused to take plaintiff no. 1 & 2 back and raised demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is contended that the defendants demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for the construction of house. Plaintiff no. 1 pleaded that said Rs.1,00,000/- were paid to the defendants from which the house bearing no. B-942, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (herein after referred to as 'suit property') was constructed. But the defendants continued to harass the plaintiff no. 1 on one pretext or the other. Several complaints were made to the police but of no result. When plaintiff no. 1 gave birth to second female child i.e. plaintiff no. 3, she was 3 shifted to one room in the front side of the suit property. Defendant no. 2 never assisted the plaintiff no. 1 in running the house. Defendants several times has tried and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. However, from the intervention of the neigbbourers, the matter had been settled between the parties. It is further pleaded that the hostile behaviour of the defendants continued and still they are threatening the plaintiffs to dispossess her from the suit property. It is further pleaded that as Rs.1,00,000/- was contributed by the plaintiff's father and plaintiff being the wife of the defendant no. 2 is entitled to the suit property. Due to repeated threats of the defendants, plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit. In the present suit, plaintiff has seeked permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and from selling, transferring, alienating or dispossessing the suit property bearing no. B-942, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Summons were duly served on the defendants but as none appeared on behalf of defendants, defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.06.
4. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined one witness, i.e. herself as PW1.
PW1 has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint on 4 oath. Her statement with this regard was recorded on 20.03.07 wherein she has proved on record the affidavit in examination in chief as PW1/A. PW1 has also referred to the following documents:-
1. Election I-Card as Ex PW1/1, 2. Site plan as Ex PW1/2
5. The whole testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and uncontested as no defence is put forth by the defendants and defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.06. The defendants despite service preferred not to contest the present.
6. I have heard the contentions raised by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for the plaintiff has also filed written arguments.
It is contended that the plaintiff has placed on record all the documents showing that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon AIR 4978 Delhi 174, AIR 1968 SC 702, AIR 1924 144. It is further contended that as the plaintiff is in legal possession of the suit property and has proved her titled by preponderance of probability, the suit shall be decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff has claimed following two reliefs:- 5
1. That the defendants be restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff form the suit property.
2. That the defendants be restrained from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.
My findings on the each relief is as follows:- RELIEF NO. 1
1. That the defendants be restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff form the suit property.
Plaintiff has placed on record the voter I-Card in which residential address of the plaintiff is mentioned as suit property. Birth certificate of plaintiff no. 2 & 3 is also placed on record which ascertains the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, present relief is decreed in favor of the plaintiff. RELIEF NO. 2
2. That the defendants be restrained from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property.
Plaintiff has prayed that defendants shall be restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property. However, plaintiff has failed to prove that she has any right, title or interest in the suit property. It is averred on behalf of the plaintiff that the suit property was constructed out of the funds given by her father. However, plaintiff as not led any evidence to prove the said averment. The documents placed on record by the plaintiff merely establishes the possession of the plaintiff in the suit 6 property. Onus of proving her title with regard to the suit property was on the plaintiff which has not been discharged properly. Therefore, even the failure of defendants to put forth their evidence will not help the plaintiff. Hence, the above relief is disallowed.
8. In view of the above discussion, suit is partly decreed in favor of the plaintiff and defendants, their agents and associates are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly form the suit property i.e. B-942, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi as shown in site plan Ex PW1/2. Propotionate cost of litigation is also awarded.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. (SUGANDHA AGGARWAL) 07.11.2007 CIVIL JUDGE: DELHI