Delhi District Court
Ram Kumari vs . Tej Ram And Others on 15 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI. ASHISH AGGARWAL, CIVIL JUDGE1,
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CS.No 167/11
Ram Kumari Vs. Tej Ram and others
15.03.2011
ORDER
1. By this order I shall decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of defendant no 1.
2. The present suit relates to property no. D90, Sector 1, Dwarka, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as " the suit property''). The facts relevant for deciding the applications are that the plaintiff has filed this suit against her father in law Mr Tej Ram who she has arrayed as defendant no 1. Defendants no. 2 and 3 are stated to be persons assisting the defendant no. 1 in the disposal of the suit property. Defendant no. 4 is the Delhi Development Authority which has allotted the suit property.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that she was married to one Santosh on 21.4.1998. The plaintiff and her husband resided in the suit property which had been allotted by the Delhi Development Authority to the fatherinlaw of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband constructed different floors on the plot from their own funds. The fatherinlaw of the plaintiff is trying to sell the property although he is not entitled to do so as per the terms of the allotment. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants no. 1 to 3 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the ground floor of the suit property.
4. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendants. The defendants have stated that the plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit property and the entire ground floor is in the possession of defendant no. 1 and his wife. It was also denied that the plaintiff and her husband carried out or funded the construction on the plot. The defendants asserted that the entire suit property is in the possession of defendant no. 1 and his wife who have acquired it out of their own funds and have carried out construction on the plot by themselves.
5. By the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has prayed for interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in her possession over the ground floor of the suit property. In order to decide the application of the plaintiff, the court is required to evaluate at the outset whether the plaintiff has succeeded in making out a prima facie case.
6. The plaintiff is seeking to protect her possession over the ground floor of the suit property. The capacity in which the plaintiff is in possession, if at all, must be ascertained. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was allotted by Delhi Development Authority to Mr. Tej Ram, defendant no 1. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she has acquired ownership rights in the suit property. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she has purchased the property or that the proprietary rights in the suit property have been transferred to her by defendant no 1. Even if the contents of the plaint are deemed to be correct, that would only indicate that it is the defendant no. 1 who continues to be the owner of the property and he had permitted the plaintiff to occupy a part thereof. The status of the plaintiff is, at best, of a licensee in the suit property. The license of the plaintiff to reside in the suit property is terminable at will. The plaintiff does not have any right to continue to occupy the premises against the wish of defendant no. 1. She owes her stay in the premises to the will of the defendant no. 1 and her continuation in the premises is susceptible to the change of this will. The plaintiff has not, and cannot, acquire any right higher than that of the defendant no 1. Even it is assumed that the plaintiff and her husband had carried out the construction of the house out of their own funds, that would not confer any ownership rights in the suit property or even the right to occupy the premises. At best, the plaintiff may be entitled to recovery of the money spent by her in carrying out the construction, for which she may take recourse to appropriate proceedings.
7. It is settled law that the wife of a person does not acquire any right in the property of her parentsinlaw. She can only claim certain rights in the property of her husband. The relief that the plaintiff is claiming is not founded upon rights recognized by law, either by contract or by statute .
In the case of S.R.Batra and another Vs. Smt Taruna Batra Appeal (Civil) 5837 of 2006 decided on 15/12/2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a daughterinlaw does not have any legal right to continue in occupation of property belonging to her parentsinlaw against their consent.
8. The mere fact that the plaintiff is occupying the premises since a long period does not bestow any right to continue in the premises. Her possession has been permissive and the plaintiff has also not claimed that her occupation has been hostile or adverse so as to invoke the law of adverse possession.
9. Whether the disposal of the property has been permitted by the terms of allotment of Delhi Development Authority is not for the plaintiff to canvass. The terms of allotment form part of the agreement between the Delhi Development Authority and the allottee i.e the defendant no 1. These terms have contractual basis and only the parties to the contract can seek their adherence. The plaintiff has no privity of contract and cannot seek implementation of the contractual terms. The terms of the contract were not aimed to provide some benefit to the plaintiff. The plaintiff would not suffer any injury to her legal rights by their contravention. The plaintiff has no locus standi to seek enforcement of the terms of contract or allotment. If at all the Delhi Development Authority or Slum & J.J Department notice the violation of terms of allotment, they may take suitable action. The plaintiff is in no position to restrain the creation of third party interest or her consequential dispossession.
10. It is settled law that injunction against dispossession cannot be granted against the true owner of the property. The use of premises by a licencee does not amount to "possession" in the eyes of law so as to deserve protection.
In the case of D.T.T.D.C vs. D.R. Mehra & Sons, 62 (1996) DLT 234 (DB), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that a licencee is, after termination of licence, not entitled to any injunction against dispossession by the owner.
In the case of Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh, A.I.R. 1985 SC 857, it was held that a licencee cannot set up title in himself in order to avoid surrender of possession of the property on termination of the licence. It was laid down that it is the duty of such licencee to surrender possession of the property.
In the case of G.N. Mehra Vs. International Airports Authority of India (IAAI), 63 (1996) DLT 62, it was laid down that after expiry of licence, the licencee is not entitled to any injunction against the true owner. Grant of such injunction would amount to perpetuating his unlawful possession.
In the case of Thomas Cook Limited Vs. Hotel Imperial & Ors., 127 (2006) DLT 431, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi took note of a number of other decisions on the subject including that of Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu, I (2004) SLT 675, and held that a licencee is a permissive occupant. His occupation does not amount to "possession" and therefore he is not entitled to the grant of injunction against dispossession.
In the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A Vismam, 1996(2) R.R.R. 353, it was held that a trespasser is not entitled to injunction against dispossession by the true owner.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, in my opinion, the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case in her favour. This indispensable requirement for grant of interim injunction remaining unfulfilled, I find no merit in the application of the plaintiff. The application is accordingly dismissed.
12. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 is taken up for consideration. It is stated in the application that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the plaint may be rejected.
13. The plaintiff has, through the present suit, sought to restrain her dispossession. As already noted above, even if the contents of the plaint are deemed to be true and correct, that would not demonstrate a right in favour of the plaintiff to continue in occupation of the suit property.
14. In these circumstances, I find no good ground to keep the suit pending or to put it to trial. Even if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the averments made in the plaint, she would not become entitled to the relief claimed by her.
In the case of T. Arivandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if on a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint if is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the case of Liverpool & London S.P.& I Association Ltd. Vs. Sea Success I & Another (2004) 9 SCC 512 it was held that when no cause of action is disclosed by the plaint, courts should not unnecessarily protract the hearing of suit. It was directed that in such cases, the court must save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the courts' resources being used up in cases which will serve no useful purpose. It was further held that a litigation which, in the opinion of the court, is doomed to fail should not further be allowed to be used as a tool of harassment.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion, the plaintiff has no cause of action. Under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint is rejected. The application filed in this behalf by the defendant is allowed.
File be consigned to record room.
(Ashish Aggarwal) Civil JudgeI/Dwarka Courts Delhi/15.03.2011