Delhi District Court
Shri Naranjan Singh vs Smt. Ravinder Kaur on 7 July, 2022
: IN THE COURT OF :
Dr. V.K. DAHIYA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 815/2017 (517905/2016)
In the matter of:
Shri Naranjan Singh,
R/o 91C, CG1,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi
110 018
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Ravinder Kaur,
W/o Sh. Paramjit Singh Bains,
R/o 91C, CG1,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi
110 018
2. Sh. Paramjit Singh Bains,
S/o Sh. Naranjan Singh,
R/o 91C, CG1,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi
110 018
....Defendants
Date of Institution of Suit : 23.12.2016
Date of transfer to this court : 27.07.2017
Date of reserving judgment : 02.07.2022
Date of pronouncement : 07.07.2022
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016)
Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 42
Appearance:
(i) Ms. Shambhavi Sinha, Advocate, ld.Counsel for the plaintiff.
(ii) Sh. R.K. Singla, Advocate ld.Counsel for defendant no.1
SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, POSSESSION, MANDATORY AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
J U D G M E N T:
1. The plaintiffs has filed the present suit for ejectment, possession, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present suit are like this :
(i) It is averred that the plaintiff is a senior citizen aged about 78 years and retired as Section Officer from UPSC New Delhi and suffering from old age ailments. The Plaintiff's life partner Smt. Nasib Kaur, abed about 73 years is also a senior citizen, and suffering from numerous old age ailments. It is averred that defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 are the daughterinlaw and son of plaintiff respectively and their marriage was solemnized in the year 1992 as per the Sikh rites and rituals and, thereafter, both the defendants have been residing in house of the Plaintiff ever since.
(ii) It is averred that defendant no.1 is a TGT teacher employed under Government Administration and draws a handsome salary per CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 42 month. That defendant no.2 is a Social security officer employed under the Employees State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi. The defendant no.1 had filed a malafide complaint dated 14.03.2016 against the plaintiff, his wife and also against defendant no.2 in PS Vikas Puri, New Delhi but the police officials did not take any actions against the plaintiff as they found nothing against them. The defendant no.1 has made false allegations against the plaintiff that he, alongwith his old wife, constantly tormented defendant no.1 for dowry. The defendant threatened plaintiff and his wife every day that if the plaintiff failed to execute the sale deed for the property bearing no. 91C, CGI, Vikas Puri (in short, the suit property), in favour of defendant no.1 then she will commit suicide by leaving suicide note that plaintiff is the cause of her death. The plaintiff and his wife threatened by the obscene and maniacal behaviour of defendant no.1, and are in a constant state of stress and harassment.
(iii) It is averred that plaintiff is the registered and absolute owner of the suit property and defendants are residing in the suit property along with plaintiff and his wife since 1998 as licensee. That the plaintiff has also applied for freehold of the suit property from leasehold through DDA which is the concerned authority and after approval, DDA converted the suit property from leasehold to freehold in terms of the conveyance deed dated 12.11.2012 and, therefore, CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 42 the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff was a government servant and after his retirement he has purchased the suit property from his own fund without the contribution of the family members, friends or any of the defendants. In fact, plaintiff had transferred huge amounts of his income in the account of defendant no.1 several times just to save his old age life and under pressure of defendant no.1 as the defendant no.1 has extended threats, a number of times, to administer poison to him.
(iv) It is averred that defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 somewhere in the year 2014, were fighting with each other, and plaintiff, after inquiry, came to know that defendant no.2 was fighting with his elder daughter for her education as her marks were below average, but defendant no.2, instead of supporting defendant no.1, started abusing, threatening and also using unparliamentary languages against defendant no.2. When the plaintiff tried to interfere between them, the defendant no.1 not only abused wife of plaintiff but also abused the plaintiff once again in the same manner as she always did. The suit property belonged to plaintiff, therefore, he has absolute right in respect of suit property to get restraint order against defendants when defendant no.1 have created unruly scenes, time and again, and further threatened the plaintiff for implicating in criminal cases.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 42
(v) It is averred that the defendant no.1 is constantly fighting with defendant no.2 on account of her own personal reasons and consequently it is plaintiff and his wife who are put under stress and anxiety. That plaintiff and his wife are old aged persons suffering from several ailments that are triggered by the disturbance caused by defendants. Plaintiff, in the year 2014, was rushed to hospital where he was admitted into the Intensive Care Unit by the doctors after examination. The Plaintiff was in a very poor and fragile health condition suffering from high fever with chills, body ache, had Jitteriness, with slurring of speech with imbalance, which indicated chances of it being a minor paralysis attack. The above said ailment was caused by the tormenting stress and anxiety built up by the defendants at the house of plaintiff. The plaintiff is unable to establish peace between defendants and their disputes this are constantly causing degradation to his health. The Plaintiff has no hope that defendants will ever live in harmony and this thought is constantly putting him under stress, which is, consequently, adding up to his poor health.
(vi) It is averred that the brothers of the defendant no.1 came to the house of plaintiff in the year 2015 and straight away threatened plaintiff that either he should execute the sale document in respect of the suit proeprty in favour of the defendant no.1 or get ready to face CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 42 all kinds of consequences. Thereafter, the plaintiff called his relatives to his house and they also requested the brothers of defendant no.1 not to threaten, harass and humiliate plaintiff, otherwise, he will take the legal recourses and, thereafter, for some time everything was going smoothly.
(vii) It is averred that defendant no.1 and her brothers somewhere in the month of February 2016 came to the house of plaintiff and threatened in the same manner as they had done earlier. The defendant no.1 alongwith her brothers threatened plaintiff that if the suit property was not transferred/executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 then she would make them face the consequences.
(viii) It is averred that defendant no.1 thereafter has filed a false and frivolous complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act), against Plaintiff, his wife Nasib Kaur and defendant no.2. The plaintiff and his wife as and when, used to appear before the court of Ld. MM, and after leaving the court, the defendant no.1 always taunted plaintiff and his wife
(ix) It is averred that defendant no.1, on several occasions, fixed up acts to cause bodily injury to plaintiff and his family by pouring water on the tiles in areas from where the plaintiff or his wife usually CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 42 passed. The plaintiff has fallen victim to such setups on the stairs as well as near the bathrooms and faced minor injuries. The plaintiff also have fears that if his ailing wife falls victim to such mischief then she will have to be rushed to the hospital. The defendant no.1 has also threatened plaintiff that she will forge the sale documents in respect of the suit property falsely in her name and sell it to the Gunda elements in the society, and then the plaintiff will have to fight for the suit property for the rest of his life. Plaintiff was earlier staying in a government accommodation during his service from 19821997 at Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi, and after his retirement, the plaintiff was staying with the defendants, at their own house, which was situated at Palam and the said house was also purchased by the plaintiff from his own pocket without any contribution from anyone including the defendants.
(x) It is averred that plaintiff and defendants had stayed together in the said property at Palam Colony up to the year 1998 and, thereafter, they have shifted to the suit property and since then they are residing in the same house. That both the Defendants are well established in the society and can take care of their food and shelter and there is no need for plaintiff and his wife to suffer, while they are in such a stage of their lives, where only peace and harmony are required from comfortable living.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 42
(xi) It is averred that since essentially there is a dispute between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 whereas plaintiff, being fatherin law of defendant no.1, at this stage of his life, did not want any interruption or interference in the peaceful possession of the suit property. The suit property is a self acquired property of plaintiff and he is in possession of the same, and the suit property cannot be described as "share house hold", therefore, plaintiff has every right to get injunction order against defendants, specifically against defendant no.1 who has no interest or right in the suit property.
(xii) It is further averred that defendant no.1 cannot assert her rights, if any, in the suit property wherein her husband (defendant no.2) has no right, title or interest. She cannot continue to live in the suit property against consent and wishes of plaintiff. That even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self acquired property of the parents against their consent and wishes. A son or daughter if permitted to live in the house as a gratuitous licensee and if such license is revoked, he has to vacate the said property.
(xiii) It is averred that the defendant no.1 has only been entitled to claim a right to a shared household, only when the defendant no.2 is residing in a joint family as a member under the same roof, whereas the plaintiff wants to free himself from the stress and anxiety caused CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 42 by the defendants. That defendants are self earning members of the society and plaintiff, therefore, insists that they live on their own in a separate house and let plaintiff live in peace.
(xiv) It is averred that defendant no.1 has a right over the property of her husband but she cannot claim a right to live in the house of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 is only entitled to claim the right to residence in a shared household, which, as contemplated u/s 2(s) of the Act, would mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by her husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the defendant no.2 is a member.
(xv) It is averred that the plaintiff somewhere in the month of January 2016, and then again somewhere in the month of February 2016, gave verbal notice to defendant no.1 and 2 to evict the suit property and after gaining knowledge of the plaintiff's state of mind, the defendant no.1 lodged the false and frivolous complaint under the Act, against the plaintiff, his wife and also against the defendant no.2 under the Act. The plaintiff again requested the defendant no.1 & 2 to vacate the portion of suit property in their possession, due to the regular harassment, threat, stress, anxiety and humiliation, somewhere in the month of December 2016, but the defendants have till date failed to vacate the same.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 42
2. After filing of the suit, summons for settlement of issues was issued to the defendants. Defendants were duly served. Written statement on behalf of the defendant no.1 has been filed. It is, interalia, submitted that the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed u/o 7 Rule 11 of CPC as there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff to file the present suit. Plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the ad velorum court fee has not been affixed by the plaintiff on the plaint. The value of the suit property is much higher than the value of Rs. 10,00,000/ as has been shown in the plaint.
3. It is submitted that the present suit has been filed with malafide intention by concealing and suppressing the material facts from this Court. The plaintiff has not disclosed the complete facts about the suit property. The suit property has been described as flat No. 91C, GG 1, Vikas Puri, New Delhi110018 whereas, in conveyance deed it is detailed as flat No. 91C, GG1, on second floor and the site plan is also in respect of second floor. But the plaintiff is also in occupation another floor of the flat No. 91C. It is further submitted that in the entire body of the plaint the plaintiff has cleverly omitted to disclose the amount of consideration/investment for Flat no. 91C (the suit property) on second floor and the construction on the floor above the second floor. He has also concealed regarding source of arrangement CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 42 of the sale consideration for investment in the suit property. The sale proceeds of the property situated at Palam Vihar were also invested for the purchase of the suit property.
4. It is submitted that the present suit by plaintiff is only a counter blast to the complaint filed on 29.03.2016 by defendant no.1 u/s 12 of the Act. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in connivance with defendant no.2, the husband of defendant no.1. It is submitted that, in fact, the police in connivance with them has not taken any action against plaintiff, his wife and the defendant no.2. The plaintiff, his wife and the defendant no.2 had managed the police with illegal gratification not to take any action against them on the complaint filed by the defendant no.1. The said police official, instead of taking any action, advised defendant no.1 to approach the court to redress her grievance.
5. It is submitted that defendant no.1 never threatened plaintiff and his wife as alleged. The defendant no.1 never threatened plaintiff and his wife with the obscene and maniacal behaviour and the plaintiff and his wife had never remained in a constant state of stress and harassment as alleged in the plaint.
6. It is submitted that in fact it is the plaintiff, his wife and defendant who have made the life of defendant no.1 miserable and CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 42 had left no stone unturned in harassing defendant no.1 and her children. The plaintiff his wife and son i.e. defendant no.2 in the present suit were not owning any house as such the question of giving any threats to execute sale deed in this regard does not arise at all.
7. It is submitted that the plaintiff had not purchased the suit property from his own pocket, otherwise, the other family members made contribution for purchase of the suit property. The plaintiff had never transferred huge amounts of his earned money in the account of defendant no.1 several times to save his old age life. The defendant no.1 has never extended any threats on any occasions as alleged. The sentences quoted in Punjabi language are totally concocted and mischievous. The fact is that the defendant no.1 had contributed a lot for purchase of suit property.
8. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 had never fought as alleged on the poor performance of their daughter in her education. The suit property never belonged to plaintiff in his individual capacity being his self acquired property. Plaintiff has no absolute right in respect of the suit property to get restraint order against defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 neither created unruly scenes nor defendant no.1 threatened plaintiff for implicating him in criminal cases, as alleged.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 42
9. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 is peace loving and had been doing everything possible for the well being of the family and save her matrimonial life. It is submitted that when the torture, harassment and violence increased towards the defendant no.1, she filed the complaint u/s 12 of the Act against the plaintiff, his wife and the defendant no.2 and accordingly court summoned them. As such the present case is a counter blast to the said proceedings and nothing else. All the allegations leveled in the present case are false, frivolous and baseless.
10. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 had never fought constantly with defendant no.2 on account of her own personal reasons and, consequently, plaintiff and his wife were put under stress and anxiety, in fact, the situation is viceversa. It is the defendant no.2, who along with plaintiff and his wife has caused physical, mental torture and economic abuse to defendant no.1, who was compelled to file complaint u/s 12 of the Act, which is pending before the court of Ms. Anu Aggarwal, ld. MM, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
11. It is submitted that most of the parameters in the said medical report of plaintiff were found to be normal. Moreover, plaintiff has not pointed out any grave incident which could lead him to any such stage. The plaintiff and his wife are not disturbed by the acts of the defendant no.1 but are disturbed by the immoral acts of the defendant CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 42 no.2 which they tried to hush up. It has been the instigation by the plaintiff and his wife to the defendant no.2, which has been a cause of violence as defined in the Act.
12. It is submitted that the brothers of the defendant no.1 never, came to the house of the plaintiff and never threatened plaintiff as alleged. The plaintiff never called his relative to his house as alleged. The plaintiff also never requested brothers of the defendant no.1, as alleged in as much as the whole story has been concocted by the plaintiff with a sole motive to get the sympathy of the court to fulfill his ill motive to get evicted defendant no.1 from the suit property.
13. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 has been repeatedly informing the plaintiff and his wife about the immoral and illegal activities of their son/defendant no.2. They were told about the affairs of defendant no.2 with other ladies. The defendant no.2, plaintiff and his wife were furious and threatened defendant no.1 to the extent of threat to her life. The two brothers of defendant no.1, on receiving call from defendant no.1 were stunned and they first went to the house of soninlaw of the plaintiff, with prior appointment with him on phone, to whom the position was informed. He assured the full cooperation in the matter. He was also requested by the said brothers of defendant no.1 to accompany them to the residence of plaintiff but he showed his inability to accompany them immediately. Thereafter, brothers of CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 42 the defendant no.1 tried to contact plaintiff on his mobile phone and the landline number, but he evaded presumably on getting a tip from his son in law about the complaint. The said brothers accompanied by two relatives, went to the house of plaintiff and on their arrival, plaintiff, his wife and defendant no.2 apprehending the graveness of the matter, showed exemplary coolness. Plaintiff in a dramatic way directed defendant no.2 not to do any act which spoils family peace. However, the moment, the brothers of defendant no.2 left the house of plaintiff, his wife and defendant no.2 again came in their original form and taunted defendant no.1 that this was all she could do; and now she would see what the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 can do.
14. It is submitted that defendant no.1 and her brothers had never gone to the house of the plaintiff in February 2016 and again threatened as alleged. It is submitted that in fact on 14.03.2016, the defendant no.1 was subjected to physical violence in the presence of her two daughters by the defendant no.2. The defendant no.1 has complained that defendant no.2 was spoiling her money on other ladies and she asked for ATM card of her bank account, which was misused by the defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 apprehending the danger to her life, rang up her brother who was 71 years old at that time, he came along with his fatherinlaw who was 87 years old. The defendant no.1 was standing on the road outside the house along CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 42 with her two daughters as she feared physical violence. She told the whole story to his brother. The suit is prayed to be dismissed.
15. Defendant no.2 also filed written statement and pleaded on the lines of the pleadings of plaintiff in the plaint and admitted most of the contents of the plaint whose details are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.
16. Replication to the written statement has been filed reaffirming and reasserting the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint.
17. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 27.08.2008, following issues were framed in the matter:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession w.r.to Flat No. 91C, C.S.F. Block No. Pocket GG1, Vikaspuri, New Delhi 110 018, as prayed ? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Mandatory Injunction, as prayed ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent Injunction, as prayed ? OPP
4. Relief ;
18. After framing of issues, matter was listed for recording of plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff has has examined as PW1 and testified through his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A and reiterated the contents of the plaint and his testimony is not reproduced for the sake of CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 42 brevity and will be averted to as and when required for recording findings on the issues and he has relied on following documents :
(i) Site plan is Mark A,
(ii) Copy of the GPA of suit property is Ex. PW1/2,
(iii) Copy of conveyance deed is Ex. PW1/3,
(iv) Copy of electricity bills along with tax reciept and medical bills
and reports are Ex. PW1/4,
(v) Copy of public notice in newspaper is Ex. PW1/5,
No other witness was examined and, thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of defendants evidence.
19. Defendants was thereafter called upon to substantiate this case by leading evidence. In order to substantiate its case, defendant no.1/Ravinder Kaur has been examined as DW1 and she testified through his evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/A and reiterated the contents of her written statement and her testimony is not reproduced for the sake of brevity and will be averted to as and when required for recording findings on issues.
20. Defendant has also examined Sh. Paramjit Singh Bains as DW2 and has deposed by way of affidavit evidence Ex. DW2/A who has deposed on the lines of PW1. Thereafter, defendants evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 42
21. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ms. Shambhavi Sinha, Advocate, ld.Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. R.K. Singla, Advocate, ld.Counsel for defendant and have perused the oral and documentary evidence led on record including the written submissions filed by counsel for the parties.
22. My issue wise findings are as under :
ISSUE no.1,2 & 3 Issue no.1 & 2 are overlapping each other and they are disposed of both common order. In order to prove his case, plaintiff appeared as PW1 and testified through his evidence affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint and, interalia, testified that defendant no.1 and defendant 2 are his son and daughter in law respectively and since the solemnisation of their marriage are residing in the suit property as a licensee. The suit property is owned and possessed by plaintiff and the defendant, after cancellation of their license, are no more entitled to retain the possession of the portion of the suit property and are under bounden duty to hand over the possession of the portion of the suit property.
23. In cross examination he has testified that plaintiff retired in 1997, he was residing in Lajwanti Colony at the time of his joining. Thereafter, he shifted to Pratap Nagar near Jail road and where he remained for twothree years and thereafter, he resided with his CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 42 brother at Palam Vihar. The property at Palam Vihar was owned by his brother Gulzar Singh which has been sold in the year 1987. He purchased the suit property after retirement and started residing there. The suit property is situated at second floor and the third floor was already constructed on the suit property and the same was included in the second floor at the time of purchase of the suit property. The suit property was got converted from leasehold to freehold in 2012 and thereafter, conveyance deed was executed in favour of plaintiff.
24. He further testified that the plaintiff is staying at third floor of the suit property and defendant no.1 is residing at the second floor (lower part) and both the portion have separate electricity connection, however, there is single water connection in the suit property. PW1 admitted that he is having a joint bank locker with defendant no.2 and the rent of said locker was paid from the account of defendant no.1 in the past. Now, the rent is paid from his account. He did not know whether the locker of defendant no.1 was maintained by defendant no.2. PW1 admitted that after filing a case under the Act by defendant no.1, plaintiff disowned both the defendant from the suit property. He admitted that both the floors are having separate kitchen in the suit property.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 42
25. Therefore, plaintiff closed evidence and defendant no.1 appeared as DW1 and testified through her evidence affidavit and retreated the contents of the written statement, which are not reproduced, and, interalia, she testified that she is residing in the suit property since solemnization of her marriage with defendant no.2. The suit property at Palam Vihar was disposed and the fund was invested for purchase of the suit property at Vikas Puri and, apart from other funds, received from defendant no.1, the fund received from the sale of property at Palam Vihar, was also a part of the sale consideration through which the suit property was purchased. The suit has been filed by plaintiff as a counter blast to a complaint filed on 29.03.2016 by defendant no.1 u/s 12 of the Act. The defendant no.2 and plaintiff in connivance has filed the present suit to get vacated the portion of suit property in possession of the defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 is fed up with the immoral and illegal activities of defendant no.2 who happened to be son of plaintiff. Defendant no.1 has been victim of the domestic violence a number of times as detailed in the written statement and evidence by way of affidavit.
26. In cross examination, she admitted that she got married in the year 1982 and after marriage, in 1992, she is employed as a teacher in Delhi Administration drawing salary of about Rs. 66,000/. She was residing in Sadik Nagar after marriage, which was a Government accomodation. She did not know whether the property at Palam Vihar CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 20 of 42 was purchased by plaintiff without any contribution. She know the amount of consideration as detailed in conveyance deed of the suit property. She has not annexed any document so as to infer that she has contributed anything for the purchase of suit property, otherwise, her entire cash was in the hands of her husband/defendant no.2. She has a joint account with her husband, which was operated by him, and she has no money to pay the fees of her children a number of time. She has not made any complaint regarding the incident as detailed in para 11 of her affidavit.
27. Defendant no.2 testified through his evidence affidavit and reiterated the contents of written statement filed by him of the written statement filed by him and supported the case of plaintiff. In cross examination, he admitted that plaintiff, his father has purchased the suit property after retirement with his own money. Defendant no.2 was having joint account with defendant no.1 prior to the divorce. He has no joint locker with plaintiff. The divorce has been granted to defendant no.1 during the pendency of the present suit. He admitted that he along with plaintiff residing on the upper floor of the suit property and his children and defendant no.1 are residing on the second floor and electricity meter is in the name of DW2 where he is residing on the upper floor i.e. third floor of the suit property.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 21 of 42
28. During the course of arguments, counsel for plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff has inducted the defendants, who happened to be husband and wife, as a licensee. But on account of the torture inflicted upon plaintiff by defendant no.1 & her of husband/defendant no.2, plaintiff has cancelled the said license of defendants in respect of the portion of the suit property. Defendant no.2 has admitted the absolute ownership and possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and defendant no.1 has also admitted in cross examination that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has pleaded and proved that the suit property is his self acquired property. Defendants are under the onus to prove that the suit property is not owned by plaintiff as they pleaded to the contrary. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Vimlaben Ajit Bhai Patel v. 2008 (14) SCC 649 and Sujata Gandhi v. S.B. Gandhi, 2020 SCC Online All 763.
29. It is further contended that the burden of proof lies on the defendants to prove contrary to the claim of plaintiff regarding his ownership and possession of the suit property, and defendant no.1 in cross examination has not been able to support her claim as pleaded in her written statement and no documentary evidence has been led by defendant no.1 in this regard to support her claim. The plaintiff has placed on record the documentary evidence as well as the conveyance deed executed in his name and said documents have CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 22 of 42 been duly exhibited and proved by plaintiff. However, defendant no.1 has not been able to challenge the veracity of the said documents and defendants being licensees, whose license has already been revoked, therefore, not entitled to remain in possession of the portion of the suit property. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Mulk Raj Khullar v. Anil Kapur & Ors judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS(OS) no.1855/2011.
30. It is further contended that plaintiff has cancelled the license of the defendants and both the defendants are Government servants and having sufficient income to bring up their children and the details of the income of the defendants are disclosed in the complaint u/s 12 of the Act, however, the defendants are still hell bent upon not to leave the portion of the suit property in their possession. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for a decree forthwith in his favour.
31. It is further contended that defendant no.1 at the time of passing of final orders tried to mislead the court and tried to bring in fresh issues which were neither pleaded by defendant no.1 nor any evidence having been led in this regard in as much as defendant no.1 has sought to enforce her right to continue in the portion of suit property under the umbrella of relief u/s 19 of the Act, when she is not entitled to any right, title or interest in the suit proeprty. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon S.R. Batra & Anr. v. Taruna Batra, CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 23 of 42 AIR 2007 SC 1118, Barun Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar & Anr. judgment in CS (OS) no.2795/2011, Sudha Mishra v. Surya Chandra Mishra judgment in RFA no.299/2014, Harish chand Tandon v. Darpan Tandon & Anr. judgment in CS (OS) no.1738/2013, Sachin & Anr. v. Jhabbu Lal & Anr. and Richa Gaur v. Kamal Kishore Gaur, 2020 (1) AWC 667, judgment in RSA no.136/2016, all passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
32. It is further contended that defendant no.1 has relied upon judgment Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja AIR 2020 SCC 5397, in order to contend that the portion of suit property i.e. the second floor of the suit property in her possession is a "share household" and on the basis of the share household as provided u/s 2(s) of the Act, the defendant no.1 is entitled to reside in the portion of the suit property despite having got divorce from defendant no.2. However, the said judgments are not applicable to facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts detailed in said judgments.
33. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 has relied upon Sneha Ahuja v. Satish Chander Ahuja & Anr. judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA no. 381/2019 (in short, Sneha AhujaI). whereby the Hon'ble High Court set aside the judgment passed by ld.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 24 of 42 additional district judge, and remanded the matter to ld. Trial Court for fresh adjudication in terms of the judgment dated 18.12.2019. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the said judgment, and remanded the matter back to ld. Additional District Judge to decide afresh. The ld. additional district judge, thereafter, on the application, u/s 19 of the Act moved by Sh. Satish Chander Ahuja, (respondent (therein), passed order for handing over possession of the immovable property by Sneha Ahuja to Satish Chander Ahuja. Thereafter, Smt. Sneha Ahuja challenged the said order before Hon'ble High Court in Sneha Ahuja v. Satish Chander Ahuja judgment passed in CM(M) no. 380/2021 (in short, Sneha AhujaII) in order to contend that rights of a women under the said Act cannot be subjugated to the rights of senior citizen under the said Act and the Hon'ble High Court has issued fresh directions in terms of the judgment passed in Vinay Verma's case. It is contended that in view of the above, the defendant no.1 is also having right over the second floor of the suit property being her "share household" which she is sharing with plaintiff and her husband/defendant no.1. The ld. counsel for defendant no.1 has also relied upon Smt. S. Vanita v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, AIR 2021 SC 117, Gurkirpal Singh Chawla v. Deepa Duggal, judgment passed in CRAS692SB/2018 by Punjab & Haryana High Court and Prabha Tyagi v. Kamla Devi judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 511/2022.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 25 of 42
34. It may be noted that defendant no.1 has led no evidence to the contrary that plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit property. In cross examination of PW1/plaintiff nothing could be elicited which may doubt his testimony as well as the documentary evidence on record that he is not the owner of the suit property, therefore, plaintiff has proved that he is owner of the suit property and nothing has been proved to the contrary by defendant no.1. It can be safely concluded that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and defendants had been inducted as gratuitous licensee of the portion of the suit property i.e. second floor of the suit property and whose license has been revoked and, therefore, possession over the said portion of the suit property of the defendants, cannot be viewed from any angle, as legal one. So is the ratio of Mulk Raj (supra) and in para no. 16, it has been observed as under :
"16.The legal position that follows is that where a suit is filed with promptitude against a licensee whose licence is terminated, a Suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable. In the present case there is no submission or argument raised that plaintiff did not file the suit with promptitude or that there was any delay in filing the suit. Admittedly, the license was terminated on 25 June, 2011 and the suit is filed in August 2011."
Therefore, plaintiff is also entitled to the possession of the suit property from defendants.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 26 of 42
35. Now the question arises, as to whether the rights of the plaintiff would prevail over the rights of defendant no.1, who has claimed to have her rights over the portion of the suit property being her "share household" and the proceedings under various provisions of the Act are pending before the court of competent jurisdiction.
36. It may be noted that plaintiff has proved on record that he is the owner of the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) has observed that the definition of "share household"
under Section 2(s) of the Act has not correctly interpreted in S.R. Batra's case and in para no. 84 & 96, and 157 it has been observed as under :
"84. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer issue Nos. 1 and 2 in following manner:
(i) The definition of shared household given in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of the joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share. (ii) The judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) has not correctly interpreted Section 2(s) of Act, 2005 and the judgment does not lay down a correct law.
XXXXXXX
96. In view of the ratio laid down by this court in the above case, the claim of the defendant that suit property is shared household and she has right to reside in the house ought to have been considered by the Trial Court and CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 27 of 42 nonconsideration of the claim/defence is nothing but defeating the right, which is protected by Act, 2005.
XXXXXX
157. From the above discussions, we arrive at following conclusions:
(i) The pendency of proceedings under Act, 2005 or any order interim or final passed under D.V. Act under Section 19 regarding right of residence is not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to the subject matter of order interim or final passed in proceedings under D.V. Act, 2005.
(ii) The judgment or order of criminal court granting an interim or final relief under Section 19 of D.V. Act, 2005 are relevant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Evidence Act and can be referred to and looked into by the civil court.
(iii) A civil court is to determine the issues in civil proceedings on the basis of evidence, which has been led by the parties before the civil court.
(iv) In the facts of the present case, suit filed in civil court for mandatory and permanent injunction was fully maintainable and the issues raised by the appellant as well as by the defendant claiming a right under Section 19 were to be addressed and decided on the basis of evidence, which is led by the parties in the suit"
37. A bare perusal of these abovesaid paras, it is crystal clear that the interpretation of definition of the "share household" has undergone CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 28 of 42 a vital change and secondly in the abovesaid judgment, the ld. Trial Court has passed a decree under Order XII rule 6 CPC on the basis of the judgment on admission and the said order has been set aside in Sneha AhujaI, which was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) and the matter was remanded back fresh adjudication so far as the rights of the respondent (therein) under the Act are concerned. Therefore, it cannot be stated that plaintiff has indefeasible right over the suit property being a senior citizen in as much as in S. Vanitha (supra) while setting aside the order passed by the courts under maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2005 (in short, the said Act), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in para no. 24 wherein, it has been observed as under :
"24 For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the claim of the appellant that the premises constitute a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005 would have to be determined by the appropriate forum. The claim cannot simply be obviated by evicting the appellant in exercise of the summary powers entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act 2007. The Second and Third Respondents are at liberty to make a subsequent application under Section 10 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 for alteration of the maintenance allowance, before the appropriate forum. For the above reasons, while allowing the appeal, we issue the following directions:
(i) The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 17 September 2019 affirming the order of PART F eviction against the appellant CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 29 of 42 shall stand set aside with the consequence that the order of the Assistant Commissioner ordering and directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises shall stand set aside;
(ii) We leave it open to the appellant to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act 2005. For that purpose, it would be open to the appellant to seek the help of the District Legal Services Authorities and if the appellant does so, all necessary aid and assistance shall be furnished to her in pursuing her legal remedies and rights;
(iii) IA 111352/2020 for restoration of the electricity connection is allowed by directing the Fourth respondent to take all necessary steps for restoration of the electricity connection to the premises within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Fourth respondent shall also continue to pay the electricity dues in future; and
(iv) In order to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act 2005, there shall be an order and direction restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the appellant, disposing of the premises or from creating any right, title and interest in favor of any third party in any manner whatsoever for a period of one year, to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies in accordance with law. The appellant is at liberty to move the Court to espouse her remedies PART F under the PWDV Act 2005 for appropriate orders, including interim protections. The directions contained in (iii) and (iv) above emanate in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution."
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 30 of 42 A bare perusal of the ratio decidendi of the said judgment depicts that rights of the senior citizen under the said Act and that of the women under the Act are to be balanced in as much as the effect of remedies sought by senior citizen under Section 3 of the said Act cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the Act.
38. Furthermore, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi (supra) judgment, has taken into consideration the provisions of the Act and held that, even if, the "aggrieved person" under the Act is not in domestic relationship with defendant, but had, at any point of time, lived in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a home, can claim a right in a "share household". It was further observed that even if, an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subject to domestic violence, the application of the aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Act, was maintainable and in para no. 52, it has been observed as under :
"52. In view of the above discussion, the three questions raised in this appeal are answered as under:
"(i) Whether the consideration of Domestic Incidence Report is mandatory before initiating the proceedings CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 31 of 42 under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in order to invoke substantive provisions of Sections 18 to 20 and 22 of the said Act?" It is held that Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the D.V. Act. It is clarified that even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as a final order under the provisions of the D.V. Act.
(ii) Whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved person to reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levied at the point of commission of violence?" It is held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person, when she is related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family, to actually reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of commission of domestic violence. If a woman has the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the D.V. Act and such a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek reliefs under the provisions of D.V. Act including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household.
(iii) Whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed?" It is held that there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed visàvis allegation of CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 32 of 42 domestic violence. However, it is not necessary that at the time of filing of an application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting. In other words, even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prabha Tyagi (supra) has taken into consideration the ratio of the judgment passed in Juveria (supra) and in para no.21(a), it has been observed as under:
"21. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the following relevant judgments of this Court wherein this Court has interpreted various provisions of the D.V. Act :
a) In Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another - [(2014) 10 SCC 736], this Court while interpreting the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act held that apart from the woman who is in a domestic relationship, any woman who has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent, if alleged to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent comes within the meaning of aggrieved person. Further, Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act states that a person aggrieved (widow herein) who, at any point of time has lived together with the husband in a CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 33 of 42 shared household is covered by the meaning of domestic relationship. Also, Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act states that if the person aggrieved at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a house, can claim a right in a shared household.
After analysing the relevant provisions of the D.V. Act, this Court while referring to V.D. Bhanot vs. Savita Bhanot [(2012) 3 SCC 183], held that the conduct of the parties even prior to coming into force of the D.V. Act could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. The wife who had shared a household in the past but was no longer residing with her husband can file a petition under section 12 if subjected to domestic violence. It was further observed that where an act of domestic violence is once committed, then a subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled to."
39. A bare perusal of the ratio of the abovesaid case laws depicts that pressing rights of a woman under the Act, in respect of the proceedings pending under the Act, will not be precluded under the provision of the said Act despite getting a decree of divorce by the said woman. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim to have indefeasible right to seek possession of the portion of the suit property in possession of defendant no.1 in as much as rights of the plaintiff, despite being a senior citizen, in respect of the suit property, are to be balanced with that of the rights of defendant no.1 under the Act as per mandate of law laid by the Superior Courts, in as much in Sneha CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 34 of 42 AhujaI Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para no. 51 has summarised the manner, in which rights of the senior citizen under the said Act and that of the women under the Act are to be balanced, which is reproduced as under :
"51. Significantly, the impugned judgments reveal the trial Court‟s failure to appreciate its own powers under Section 26 of the DV Act. Consequently, the aggrieved persons, despite being entitled to protection under the DV Act, have been virtually rendered roofless by these impugned judgments when they approach the Courts, which in turn also appear to be unclear about the precise nature of their powers and responsibilities under the DV Act. To put it differently, the daughtersin law continue to harbour under the mistaken belief, augmented by the arguments of the inlaws and the misinterpretation of the DV Act by the trial Courts, that their rights can only be claimed before the DV Court. In reality Section 26 makes it clear that, irrespective of any pending proceedings before the DV Court, daughtersinlaw can claim the reliefs under Sections 1822 of the DV Act before any other court, including the Civil Court, in any proceedings instituted by them or the inlaws. In fact, I find no impediment to a civil court exercising its powers under Section 26 to mould the reliefs, despite the pendency of the domestic violence proceedings before the DV Court, if a case was made out to pass directions under Section 19(1)(f) to prevent the possibility of a protracted litigation. In conclusion, the findings of the trial Courts decreeing these suits under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, without considering the rights and claims of the appellants under the DV Act as also their defence that, notwithstanding the title documents being in favour of the respondents, the suit premises is still a joint CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 35 of 42 family property, cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, set aside."
40. The ratio of Sneha AhujaI has been reiterated by Hon'ble High Court in Sneha Ahuja II in para no. 31, where it has observed as under :
"However, it is considered apposite to reproduce the guidelines issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vinay Verma's case:
"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 daughterinlaw and to provide for a dignified roof/shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of providing the shelter or roof is upon the inlaws or upon the husband of the daughterin 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 daughterinlaw 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 inlaw or daughter/soninlaw from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 36 of 42 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 daughterinlaw would remain both upon the inlaws 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 daughterinlaw from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is illtreating 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 daughterinlaw, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughterinlaw during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
Significantly, it is for the learned Trial Court to determine the nature of relationship between the parties and to permit eviction, if the relationship was acrimonious. The learned Trial Court was also to ascertain, whether the daughterinlaw was residing in a joint family."
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 37 of 42
41. So far as the judgment relied upon by ld. counsel for the plaintiff in para no. 28 & 31 of this judgment are concerned, the same pales into insignificance in as much as they are based on judgment passed in S.R. Batra's case and interpretation of the definition of the "domestic relationship" under Section 2(s) of the Act has not been found in consonance with the intention of legislature as held in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra).
42. As a sequel to the above and taking into consideration, the ratio decidendi of the above said case law, it transpired that right of senior citizen under the said Act are to be balanced with the right of woman under the Act. The civil court as per mandate of Section 26 of the Act is empowered to grant any relief especially provides for such eventuality and this provision further make it incumbent upon daughterinlaw to inform the DV Court, in case any relief, is obtained by her under the Act, in any proceedings other than the proceedings before the DV Court.
43. It may be noted that defendant no.1 in the present suit has pleaded the suit property as her "share household" in as much as it is proved on record that admittedly, she, with her three children, is residing at the second floor of the suit property whereas, plaintiff along with defendant no.2 (husband of defendant no.1) is residing on the third floor of the suit property. Defendant no.1 in para no.18 has CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 38 of 42 also pleaded that the situation was so deteriorated that defendant no.1 was compelled to filed complaint u/s 12 of the Act. Defendant no.1 has pleaded in para no.27 of the written statement, that she has filed an application under 12 of the Act against the plaintiff and his wife/defendant no. 1 in para no. 30, has also pleaded that the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act is based on true and proper facts.
44. Although, no issue has been framed regarding claim of defendant no.1 over the portion of the suit property being her "share household" yet there is material on record that the portion of the suit property happened to be "share household" of defendant no.1 and the proceedings filed by defendant no.1 under the Act are still pending before the DV Court and as per dicta of law laid down in Prabha Tyagi (supra) the said proceedings will continue, even if, defendant no.1 has got divorce from defendant no.2, and no appeal is pending against such judgment whereby, defendant no.2 got divorced from defendant no.1.
45. It may be noted that as per the dicta of Vinay Kumar (supra) the parentsinlaw were held entitled to seek eviction of the daughter inlaw, however, the parentsinlaw were under an obligation to maintain and to provide shelter for the daughterinlaw if the parents inlaw are in collusion with their son/husband of woman and further CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 39 of 42 the parentinlaw of husband were living as part of joint family with the aggrieved person/woman. The case of defendant no.1 is falling under the condition no.3 of Vinay Verma's case in as much as relationship between plaintiff and defendant no.1 are acrimonious and, therefore, in these circumstances it is the obligation of husband/defendant no.2 to maintain his wife/defendant no.1 in terms of the settled principles of law laid down by the Superior Court and as per the provisions of the Act.
46. In view of the abovesaid provision of law and the dicta of the law laid down by superior courts, this court is of the opinion that rights of defendant no.1 are to be balanced with the rights of plaintiff. It may be noted that a bare perusal of the material on record, it can be safely concluded that plaintiff and defendant no.2 are residing together, therefore, prima facie, plaintiff and defendant no.2 are in connivance with each other, and relation of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 are acrimonious as per the evidence placed on record by the parties. Therefore, defendant no.2 is under an obligation to provide alternative accommodation to defendant no.1 and her children being her husband till the culmination of the proceedings filed by defendant no.1 before DV Court.
47. Therefore, defendants are hereby directed that they will handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the second floor of CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 40 of 42 the suit property to plaintiff within six month from today and defendant no.2 will pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/ per month as rent/maintenance charges to defendant for availing the alternative accommodation by defendant no.1 equivalent to the status that she was enjoying in the portion of the suit property, from the date she has shifted to the suit property after purchase of the same.
48. The defendant no.2 is hereby directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 50,000/ on the seventh day of each English Calendar month to defendant no. 1 subject to the final fate of the proceedings pending before the DV Court on petition filed by defendant no.1. It is further clarified that at the time of handing over of the possession of second floor of the suit property by defendant no.1 to plaintiff, the defendant no.2 will pay the two months advance maintenance charges/advance rent i.e. Rs. 1 lakhs, for the subsequent months and, thereafter, by the 7th day of every succeeding month directly to the bank account of defendant no.1.
RELIEF
49. In view thereof, the suit of plaintiff is "decreed" as follows :
a) Decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants whereby defendants are directed to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the second floor of the suit property to plaintiff within six months from today.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016) Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 41 of 42
b) Decree is passed in favour of defendant no. 1, whereby defendant no.2 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/ as rent/maintenance charges to defendant no.1 for availing alternative accommodation on the seventh day of each English Calendar month subject to the final fate of the proceedings pending before the DV Court on petition filed by defendant no.1. The defendant no. 2 will pay the two months advance maintenance charges/advance rent i.e. Rs. 1 lakhs, for the subsequent months and, thereafter, by the 7 th day of every succeeding month directly to the bank account of defendant no.1.
c) Decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 & defendant no. 2 w.r.to Flat no. 91C, S.F., Pocket GG1, Vikaspuri, New Delhi 110018, restraining the defendants, their agents, relatives, servants, etc. from entering into the suit proeprty.
d) Decree of mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.1 & defendant no.2 whereby defendants are directed not to create any third party interest in respect of the suit proerpty
e) Plaintiff is also entitled to cost.
Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
Announced in the open court on VIJAY KUMAR
KUMAR DAHIYA
07th Day of July 2022. DAHIYA Date:
2022.08.06
16:57:19
+0530
(V.K. DAHIYA)
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE01 (SOUTH WEST)
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI.
CS No. 815 / 2017 (517905 / 2016)
Naranjan Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
Page no. 42 of 42