Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwinder Singh And Another vs Bhagwant Singh And Another on 17 January, 2014
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
RSA No. 186 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.186 of 2014 (O & M)
Date of Decision: January 17, 2014.
Ashwinder Singh and another
... Appellants
Versus
Bhagwant Singh and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?. YES
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?. YES
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? YES
Present: Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
This unfortunate regular second appeal is a poignant reminder of decaying social values and traditions in our country. The case is tell- tale story of how children have become detached in today's commercialized world and are making attempts to throw out their aged parents from the property which the parents have acquired during their life-time. It is perfect example of children becoming insensate towards Kumar Parveen 2014.02.13 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 186 of 2014 2 parents/senior citizens.
"Maatru Devo Bhava" (revere your mother as God) and "Pitro Devo Bhava" (revere your father as God) is a well-known proverb.
On page 1200 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Guru Ram Dass has written that "KAAHAY POOT JHAGRAT HA-O SANG BAAP / JIN KAY JANAY BADEERAY TUM HA-O TIN SIO JHAGRAT PAAP//" ( O son, why do you argue with your father? It is a sin to argue with the one who fathered you and raised you.).
The above words of prudence guide us that we have to treat our parents as God. Modernization, technological advancement and social liability have changed our life-style and values. Sadly, our bent of mind and responsibility towards parents has degenerated. We have forgotten about Sharavan Kumar, who placed his blind parents in two baskets and carried the baskets on his shoulder to various places of pilgrimage. We have also forgotten the duties of a son towards aged parents. We have completely given up our ancient traditions when parents were most revered and respected.
In the present case, son and daughter-in-law who happen to be defendants in the present case, have failed to spare a thought as to how fragile and feeble aged persons will be able to cope up their failing health, financial constraints, depressions, loneliness, harassment, emotional stress and physical restraint and love towards grand-children. They were not properly guided even in filing the suit. Keeping in view Kumar Parveen 2014.02.13 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 186 of 2014 3 the difficulties faced by aged persons at the hands of their children, new law known as Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has been passed with a purpose to give some relief to senior citizens if they are ignored by their children after devastating them of their property. This problem is widespread and needs to be addressed immediately.
This second appeal arises from a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery filed by plaintiffs-Bhagwant Singh and his wife-Amarjit Kaur directing defendants i.e. their son-Ashwinder Singh and daughter- in-law Sukhwinder Kaur to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property and to make the payment of ` 1500/- per month for use and occupation charges from the date of filing of suit till date of actual delivery of possession, which has been decreed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 05.01.2013 and appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2013.
The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts, as pleaded by plaintiffs, are to the effect that plaintiff no.1- Bhagwant Singh had purchased the suit property as detailed in head-note of plaint vide registered sale deed No.2490 dated 27.07.1977. Defendants being son and daughter-in-law were allowed to live in one room, kitchen and bathroom on first floor and one room on ground floor of the suit property as licensees of plaintiffs for looking after and Kumar Parveen 2014.02.13 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 186 of 2014 4 providing necessary help to plaintiffs due to their old age. When the suit was filed, plaintiffs were stated to be 66 and 60 years old, respectively. Plaintiffs are in possession of four rooms, one store, one drawing room, two kitchens and one bathroom on ground floor and two rooms on first floor including one religious room. It was further pleaded that plaintiffs are paying electricity, water and sewerage charges of the house. Even defendants were allowed to use T.V., Refrigerator, Gas Cylinder and Gas Stove and other household articles. Plaintiffs were aggrieved against the conduct of defendants as instead of providing help to plaintiffs in old age, they started pressurizing them to vacate the house and to execute the sale deed in their favour. It was further pleaded that conduct and behaviour of defendants towards plaintiffs is not good. Plaintiffs approached the police authorities by moving an application dated 30.09.2008 to DSP, Patiala. Defendants forced plaintiffs to enter into compromise vide which defendants undertook to pay ` 350/- as electricity and sewerage charges and also agreed to vacate bathroom which was given temporarily to defendant no.2 due to her illness. However, defendants did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and did not pay any amount. Defendants also did not vacate bathroom on the ground floor, rather they started abusing and giving threats to plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that on 10.12.2008, defendants gave abuses and also broke the scooter of plaintiffs. Defendant no.2 also called her brother-Bunty and Jija-Gurdeep Singh at the spot who immediately started giving threats to plaintiffs. Kumar Parveen 2014.02.13 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 186 of 2014 5 Defendants also threatened the plaintiffs on mobile phone to be killed through a hired criminal and through the police of Police Station, Tripuri, Patiala with whom defendants have good links. Many unknown and unidentified persons used to visit defendants in the night and used to sit there and also used to create nuisance in the house after taking liquor, which is creating a lot of problem to the health of plaintiffs, who are already suffering from heart diseases. Defendant no.2 also threatened to implicate plaintiffs in false case of dowry demand, rape etc. Upon notice, defendant no.2 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections of non-joinder of necessary parties, affixation of ad valorem court fee. On merit, it was pleaded that suit property was purchased from the funds of HUF. As such, the same is liable to be considered as joint family property. Defendants are residing in the suit property by lawful rights and it is right of a married woman to reside in joint household by operation of law. Relationship of licensee was denied. It was also pleaded that alleged compromise is a false and fabricated document.
Defendant no.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte.
On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover charges for use and occupation of the suit Kumar Parveen 2014.02.13 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 186 of 2014 6 premises from the defendants?OPP
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-payment of proper court fee?OPD
5. Whether the suit property is joint family property?OPD
6. Relief."
After appreciating the evidence, the Court of first instance decreed the suit and directed defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the portion of the house in their possession to the plaintiffs within a period of three months from the date of decree and further directed defendants to pay use and occupation charges at the rate of ` 1500/- per month from the date of filing of suit till the date of actual date of delivery of possession. Feeling aggrieved, defendants preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by lower Appellate Court and defendants have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the house in question to the plaintiffs within one month and they should move an application before the executing court within one month to report that they have complied with the decree of mandatory injunction by vacating the house in question. It has also been directed that if defendants fail to hand over the vacant possession of the house in question to the plaintiffs within one month and plaintiffs have to move the executing court, in that event the executing court should straight way issue the process for execution of the decree in question by arrest/detention of defendants as per provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 Kumar Parveen 2014.02.13 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 186 of 2014 7 CPC. It has also held that decree for recovery of arrears towards the use and occupation charges shall be executable on payment of court fee by plaintiffs on the amount which becomes due to them. Hence, this regular second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for appellants and perused the record.
Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that following substantial questions of law, suggested in the grounds of appeal, arise for consideration by this Court:
(i) Whether the appellants have right to stay in
a small part of house which has been built
from the funds of HUF?
(ii) Whether the minor child of appellants aged
about 5 years was a necessary party?
(iii) Whether the minor child of appellants can
be evicted?
(iv) Whether the suit filed by the respondents
was proper in form or not?
Learned counsel for appellants has contended that property in dispute is a joint Hindu family property and appellants have a right to stay in the house. Minor child of appellants was also a necessary party in the suit. Appellants are not licensees and they can stay in the said house as a matter of right.
I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for appellants.
Admittedly, defendants claimed that property in dispute is joint Kumar Parveen 2014.02.13 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 186 of 2014 8 Hindu family property and they have a right to stay therein, but the Court of first instance has recorded a categoric finding on issue no.5 holding that it is a self-acquired property, not joint Hindu family property. It was purchased by plaintiff no.1-Bhagwant from Kuljit Kaur, vide registered sale deed no.2490 dated 27.07.1977, however, defendant no.2 got married with defendant no.1 in the year 2004. The Court of first instance has recorded that if plaintiff had allowed son and daughter-in-law to reside in the house, then right with the defendants is of mere licensee and plaintiffs were licensors. Further, license is terminable at the will of the licensor. The said license expired on 04.11.2009, when notice Ex.P-7 for termination of license was sent to defendants.
Defendant no.1, who happens to be son of plaintiffs, did not appear before the Court of first instance and did not file written statement and the suit was being defended by defendant no.2, who happens to be daughter-in-law of plaintiffs.
The said findings of Court of first instance have been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.
Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants could not show that the said findings are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non- reading or misappreciation of the material evidence on record. Consequently, the said findings of fact do not warrant interference in regular second appeal. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, as alleged, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Kumar Parveen 2014.02.13 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 186 of 2014 9
No other point has been urged.
Dismissed in limine.
Appellants are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the property in dispute and not to interfere in the life of respondents, who are aged persons. The appeal should have been dismissed with heavy costs but keeping in view the relationship of the parties, I am restraining from imposing the same and hope that one day wiser sense will prevail.
January 17, 2014 (Paramjeet Singh)
parveen kumar Judge
Kumar Parveen
2014.02.13 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document