Delhi District Court
Smt Manu Tanwar vs Karan Singh on 16 July, 2018
Page no. 1 of 12
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI, JSCC CUMASCJ
CUMGUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTHEAST, NEW DELHI.
RCA No. 10/17
IN THE MATTER OF :
SMT MANU TANWAR
W/O NAVEEN CHOUDHARY
D/O MATHAN SINGH TANWAR
R/O 174, SARAI JULLENA,
NEW DELHI
.....Appellant
VERSUS
1. KARAN SINGH
S/O DHANPAL SINGH
R/O 174, SARAI JULLENA
NEW DELHI
2. MATHAN SINGH TANWAR
S/O SHRI LEKHI RAM
(PERFORMA RESPONDENT)
RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge
Vs. South East, Saket Courts
Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018
SUSHIL Digitally signed by SUSHIL
ANUJ TYAGI
ANUJ TYAGI Date: 2018.07.23 15:54:42
+0530
Page no. 2 of 12
3. MOHIT TANWAR
S/O MATHAN SINGH TANWAR
(PERFORMA RESPONDENT)
ALL R/O 266, BLOCK 4,
KANTA ENCLAVE NEAR
SURAJKUND SHOOTING RANGE ROAD,
FARIDABAD, HARYANA
4. THE SHO
PS NEW FRIENDS COLONY
NEW DELHI
(PERFORMA RESPONDENT)
.........Respondents
Date of institution : 18.09.2017
Reserved for Judgment : NOT RESERVED
Date of decision : 16.07.2018
ORDER ON APPEAL
1. This is a regular first appeal filed against the Judgment dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (South East), Ms. Shriya Agrawal in Civil Suit no. 50319/16, titled as Karan Singh Vs. Manu RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge Vs. South East, Saket Courts Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018 Page no. 3 of 12 Tanwar & Ors.
2. The impugned judgment has been assailed by the counsel for the appellant on several grounds as mentioned in the appeal. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court had failed to consider that issues were already framed and once the evidence has commenced, the suit cannot be decided under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Moreso, when the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing additional issues on behalf of the defendant is pending. It is alleged that the defendant have specifically denied the ownership of the plaintiff and stated that the property is jointly owned by the family members including her husband but the Ld. Trial Court had failed to consider that no documents qua ownership has been filed or relied upon by the plaintiff and the Ld. Trial Court had wrongly held that from the house tax receipts, the ownership of the property can be ascertained. It is alleged that house tax receipt does not confirm or ascertain ownership of any property. It is alleged RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge Vs. South East, Saket Courts Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018 Page no. 4 of 12 that the documents filed by the plaintiff were not admitted by the defendants and the Ld. Trial Court had failed to consider same. It is alleged that where there is no addition on the part of defendants, suit could not have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. It is further argued that there is no site plan of the property. The plaintiff has deliberately not mentioned the dimensions of the property nor there is any averment regarding the floors on the suit property. It is alleged that there cannot be any blanket decree without clear ascertainment of the suit property.
3. The counsel for the plaintiff/respondent have vehemently opposed the appeal and it is submitted that the appellant who is the daughterin law of the respondent has only challenged the judgment and not the other defendants. It is further submitted that appellant being the daughterinlaw of the respondent has no right in the suit property being the property of fatherinlaw. It is further argued that appellant was only RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge Vs. South East, Saket Courts Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018 Page no. 5 of 12 permissive user of the suit property and she cannot claim any right over the property of fatherinlaw. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff in view of the admissions of the defendant in the WS wherein they have admitted that it is the matrimonial home. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the number of judgments which are as follows:
(a) Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors Vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) 20914 of 2004 decided on 11.03.2005 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
(b) Mr. S. N. Puri Vs. Mr. Rajan Kapoor & Ors., RFA (OS) 67/2014 decided on 25.07.2015 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
(c) Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avtar Singh 1985 AIR 857, 1985 SCR (3) 184 decided on 12.03.1985 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
(d) Joseph Severance & Ors. Vs. Benny Mathew & Ors., Appeal (Civil) 3818 of 2000 decided on 23.09.2005 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
(e) Virender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Jaswant Rai & Anr., RSA NO. 46/2011 decided on 10.03.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(f) M/s Sunrise Construction Vs. Veena Wahi, CS (05) No. 154/2009 decided on 12.05.2009 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge Vs. South East, Saket Courts Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018 Page no. 6 of 12
(g) Sachin & Anr. Vs. Jhabbu Lal & Anr., RSA 136/2016 & CM no.
19123/2016 decided on 24.11.2016 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
(h) Ekta Arora Vs. Ajay Arora & Anr., CRL MC No. 3497/2008 decided on 07.08.2015 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
(i) Sudha Mishra Vs. Surya Chandra Mishra, RFA 299/2014 decided on 25.07.2014 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
(j) S. R. Batra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra, Appeal (civil) 5837/2006 decided on 15.12.2006 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
(k) Shri Suniti Ranjan Roy Vs. Shri Pabitra Kumar Sengupta RSA no.
182/2011 decided on 31.10.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The Ld. Trial Court has decreed the present suit of the plaintiff /respondent under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Vide the same order, the Ld. Trial Court also decreed another suit bearing no. CS 52646/16. The said order qua the other suit has already been set aside in appeal vide order dated 14.12.2017 of Ms. Monika Saroha, Ld. Senior Civil Judge, South East, Saket Courts.
RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge
Vs. South East, Saket Courts
Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018
Page no. 7 of 12
6. Now coming to the present appeal, it is well settled law that the court may at any stage of the case can pass decree on admissions of either of the parties provided that the admissions are clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vijaya Myne Vs. Satya Bhushan Kaura 142 (2007) DLT observed as thus:
"The admission can be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing. The admissions can even be constructive admissions and need not be specific or expressive which can be inferred from the vague and evasive denial in the written statement while answering specific pleas raised by the plaintiff. The admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, for this purpose, the court has to scrutinize the pleadings in their detail and has to come to the conclusion that the admissions are unequivocal, unqualified and unambiguous. In the process, the court is also required to ignore vague, evasive and unspecific denials as well as inconsistent pleas taken in the written statement and replies. Even a contrary stand taken while arguing the matter would be required to be ignored."
7. It is therefore to be seen that whether in the present case the RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge Vs. South East, Saket Courts Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018 Page no. 8 of 12 defendants have admitted the averments of the plaintiff in unequivocal terms or not.
8. In the suit, the plaintiff has alleged himself to be the owner of the suit property. In support, the plaintiff has filed electricity bill, water bill, house tax challan, MCD licence and Delhi Police Licence. It is argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has shown the ownership documents to the concerned authorities and on the basis of the documents - electricity bill, water bill and house tax challan, the MCD licence and Delhi Police Licence have been issued in the name of the plaintiff and thus plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. Interestingly, the plaintiff has not filed any single document of ownership or title which could suggest that plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. It is not in dispute that daughterinlaw does not have any right to reside in the property of the fatherinlaw or motherinlaw without their consent, however, it is also settled law that she has right to live in RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge Vs. South East, Saket Courts Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018 Page no. 9 of 12 the property where her husband has share in the property.
9. In the present case, the defendants have categorically disputed the documents filed by the plaintiff. There is no clear admissions on behalf of the defendants regarding the ownership of the suit property by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is sole and absolute owner of the suit property then the plaintiff is required to establish the same during the trial. There is no admission or presumption that the suit property belongs exclusively to the plaintiff. The Ld. Trial Court had proceeded to hold in para 16 that "Thus the ownership, the factum that the guest house was being run in the name of plaintiff herein are deemed to have been admitted."
10. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that first of all there is no admission of ownership by the defendants and secondly, even if the guest house is being assumed to be run in the name of plaintiff that does not mean that plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge Vs. South East, Saket Courts Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018 Page no. 10 of 12 property. Thus, this court is of the view that in the absence of any clear and specific admission by the defendant regarding ownership of the plaintiff, there was no occasion for the Ld. Trial Court to pass the decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
11. The judgments cited by the counsel for plaintiff are distinguishable on facts. The Sunrise Construction Case (supra) was based on the clear admission of the defendant whereby he had admitted his signatures on the documents but denied the contents, which was held to be no defence in view of section 91 & 92 of Indian Evidence Act.
12. In Virender Kumar case (supra), the plaintiffs have alleged that they have purchased the suit property vide registered documents. However, in the present case, there is no such averment by the plaintiff/respondent as to how he has gained ownership. Thus the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the present facts and RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge Vs. South East, Saket Courts Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018 Page no. 11 of 12 circumstances.
13. The judgments Joseph Severance (supra) and Sant Lal Jain (supra) are on the point that suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable against the licensee but no such issue was raised during the arguments as such they are of no relevance for deciding the present appeal.
14. In S. N. Puri Case (supra), the decree on admission was passed on the basis of admission in the admitted lease deed but in the present case, there is no admission of documents or ownership and as such the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the case in hand.
15. As far as the observations of other cases relied upon by the counsel for the respondent are concerned, the law that daughter in law has no right of residence in the self acquired property of parents in law is RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge Vs. South East, Saket Courts Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018 Page no. 12 of 12 not disputed.
16. In the light of above discussions and observations, it is thus held that decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC passed by the Ld. Trial Court was unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The order of the Ld. Trial court dated 08.08.2017 is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed.
17. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the TCR.
18. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
Court today on 16 day of
th
JSCCcumASCJcumGJ
July, 2018 South East, Saket Courts
16.07.2018 (r)
RCA No. 10/17 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
Smt. Manu Tanwar JSCC cumASCJcumGuardian Judge
Vs. South East, Saket Courts
Karan Singh & Ors. 16.07.2018