Delhi District Court
Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa vs Inderjeet on 18 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Vikas Madaan, DJS
CS SCJ No. 189/21
CNR DL WT030003892021
Date of institution of suit : 02.02.2021
Date of reservation of Judgment : 01.12.2023
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 18.12.2023
Smt. Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa
W/o Late Sh. Dharam Pal Wadhwa
R/o 3/65, First Floor
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi27.
..............Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Mr. Inderjeet
S/o Late Sh. Dharam Pal Wadhwa
2. Smt. Deepti
W/o Sh. Inderjeet
Both R/o 3/65, First Floor, Front Side
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi27.
Digitally
.......... Defendants signed by
VIKAS
VIKAS MADAAN
_____________________________________________________________ MADAAN Date:
2023.12.18
15:39:49
Argued by +0530
Sh. Sumit Gaba, Ld. counsel for plaintiff
Sh. Vinay Kumar, Ld. LAC for defendant no.2.
Pages 1 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Brief facts of the present case as per plaint are that the plaintiff is owner of property no. 3/65, Front Side, First Flor, measuring 60 Sq. Yards, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). Defendants are residing in the suit property as licensee being son and daughter in law. It is stated that defendants do not care and maintain plaintiff and their behaviour is not cordial with plaintiff and they threatened the plaintiff to throw out plaintiff's articles from her own property, therefore the plaintiff had no alternative left except to disown the relations with the defendants and debarred the defendants from all her movable and immovable properties. It is further stated that on 01.1.2021, the plaintiff also filed a wring complaint to SHO and other higher officials regarding illegal acts committed by defendants against plaintiff but no action has been taken by them till date. It is further stated that on 28.12.2020, plaintiff also sent the notice for revoking/terminating the license of both defendants. It is further stated that defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property, hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date:
2023.12.18 15:39:58 +0530
2. By virtue of present suit the plaintiff has prayed for Pages 2 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21 the following reliefs :
(a) Decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants, their successors, agents, assignees, legal representatives etc. thereby directing the defendants to remove their bag and baggage and articles and to vacate the suit property no. 3/65, Front Side, First Flor, measuring 60 Sq. Yards, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi and to give peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff.
(b) Cost of the suit may also be awarded.
3 Vide Order dated 07.06.2023, the right to file W.S of defendant no.1 was closed as no W.S filed on behalf of defendant no.1 till 07.06.2023.
4. W.S has been filed on behalf of defendant no.2 wherein it is stated that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff has been playing fraud by declaring herself to be owner of the premises in question. It is submitted that the suit property was purchased by the grand father in law of defendant no.2 from his own source of income. It is further stated that the plaintiff is a house wife and has no source of income as such how it is possible for her to purchase the suit property. It is further stated that the suit property is the shared household of defendant no.2 as per Section 2 (S) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) as such the defendant no.2 has a right to residence in the same property. It is further stated that prior to filing of the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date:
2023.12.18 15:40:12 +0530Pages 3 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21 present suit the plaintiff did not make any complaint to the police or any authority regarding the alleged harassment or allegation made by the plaintiff. It is further stated that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no.2 just to evict out the defendant no.2 and her minor children from the matrimonial house of defendant no.2. It is further stated that defendant no.2 is running a shop of chole bhature then somehow,she can be able to meet out the basic need of her and her children.
5. It is further stated that defendant no.2 has already filed a complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act against plaintiff and defendant no.1 and it is a settled law that during the pendency of complaint of Domestic Violence Act, defendant no.2 has a right to stay in the suit property and cannot be evicted as per the law. It is further stated that plaintiff and defendant no.1 are continuously threatening defendant no.2 that if she will not vacate the suit premises, she will face the dire consequences in this regard an FIR was also lodged by defendant no.2 against plaintiff and defendant no.1. It is further stated that plaintiff herein has not come to this Court with clean hands.
6. It is further stated that marriage of defendant no.2 with defendant no.1 was a love marriage which was performed at the residence of defendant no.2 on 28.04.2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and after that defendant no.2 was brought to her matrimonial home. It is further stated that Digitally signed by VIKAS Pages 4 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21 VIKAS MADAAN Date: MADAAN 2023.12.18 15:40:22 +0530 after few days the behaviour of plaintiff and defendant no.1 got changed and they began to demand Rs. 20 Lacs cash for the opening/purchasing of shop from defendant no.2 and when parents of defendant no.2 showed their inability to fulfill their demands, they started harassing the defendant no.2. It is further stated that defendant no.1 is a habitual drunkard and used to bear defendant no.2 and her children mercilessly. It is further stated that a written complaint was also lodged by defendant no.2 in the concerned P.S in this respect. In rest of the W.S the averments made in plaint are denied and prayer is made for dismissal of suit.
7. Replication to the W.S has been filed by plaintiff wherein the contentions raised in the written statement are denied and averments made in the plaint are reiterated.
B. ISSUES
8. Vide Order dated 07.06.2022 following issues were framed :
(A) Whether the suit premises is a shared household as per Section 2 (s)of Domestic Violence Act ? OPD (B) Whether the present suit is filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no.1 ? OPD (C) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants, their successors ,agents etc. thereby directing the defendants to remove their bag and baggage and articles and to vacate the suit property and to give peaceful Digitally signed by VIKAS MADAAN VIKAS Date:
Pages 5 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21MADAAN 2023.12.18 15:40:31 +0530 vacant possession to plaintiff ? OPP (D) Relief.
C. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
9. In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 and has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. PW 1/A and has relied upon following documents :
Sr. Details of documents Exhibits
No.
1 Certified copy of
property Ex. PW 1/1
(colly. )
documents i.e. agreement to sell,
Will
2. Site plan Ex. PW 1/ 1A
3. Copy of aadhar Card Ex.PW1/B
(OSR)
4. Copy of complaint Ex. PW 1/2
5. Copy of legal notice Ex. PW 1/3
6. Postal receipts Ex. PW 1/4
10. Thereafter vide separate statement made by plaintiff on 07.06.2023, PE was closed and the matter was listed for DE on behalf of defendant no. 2. Vide Order dated 24.08.2023, the right to lead DE was closed as no DE led on behalf of defendants. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date: 2023.12.18 15:40:41 +0530 Pages 6 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21
11. I have heard final arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for parties and perused the record.
E. FINDINGS 12. ISSUE NO.1
(A) Whether the suit premises is a shared household as per Section 2 (s) of Domestic Violence Act ? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon defendants.
In the present suit no evidence has been led by the defendant to prove that the suit property is her shared household as per Section 2 (s) of Domestic Violence Act. Accordingly, this issue stands decided against defendant no.2.
13. ISSUE NO.2 (B) Whether the present suit is filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no.1 ? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant.
In the present suit no evidence has been led by the defendant no.2 to prove that defendant no. 1 is acting in collusion with the plaintiff. Hence, this issue also stands Digitally signed decided against defendant no.2. VIKAS by VIKAS MADAAN MADAAN Date: 2023.12.18 15:40:48 +0530
14. ISSUE NO.3 (C) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Pages 7 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21 mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants, their successors, agents etc. thereby directing the defendants to remove their bag and baggage and articles and to vacate the suit property and to give peaceful vacant possession to plaintiff ?
The onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff.
Plaintiff has claimed to be the owner of the suit premises. Plaintiff has filed Ex. PW 1/1 (colly.) i.e. certified copy of agreement to sell and Will executed in her favour. The said documents cannot confer the title of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the Judgment of The Hon'ble Apex Court titled as "Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.", 2012 (1) SCC 656. Ld. counsel for defendant no.2 on the other hand has argued that the suit property is an ancestral property and was purchased by the grandfather in law of defendant no.2 from his own source of income. At this stage it is pertinent to refer to Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act. As per Section 103 of Evidence Act, the burden to prove a particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence. It was defendant no.2 to prove that the suit premises is an ancestral property. Nothing has been placed on record by defendant no.2 to prove that the suit premises is an ancestral property. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks mandatory injunction against the defendants to vacate the suit property and to give peaceful and vacant possession to the plaintiff. It is averred by the plaintiff that the Digitally signed by VIKAS MADAAN VIKAS Date:
MADAAN 2023.12.18 Pages 8 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21 15:41:03 +0530 behaviour of defendant no.1 and 2 was not cordial with her and they used to quarrel with her and they further threatened to kill her. It is further averred by the plaintiff that she had filed a complaint before the concerned authority vide Ex. PW 1/2 against defendant no.1 and 2.
Vide Ex. PW 1/2, the plaintiff has leveled certain allegations against the defendant no.1 and 2 wherein she stated that the relatives of the defendant no.2 had beaten her and MLC was prepared at DDU hospital. However no such MLC has been filed on record by the plaintiff to show that she was beaten up by the defendant no.2 or her relatives. It is further pertinent to note that apart from Ex. PW 1/2 no document has been placed on record to prove the alleged cruel behaviour of defendant no.1 and 2 towards the plaintiff. A plaintiff has to prove his case and stand on his own legs. In the present suit, the plaintiff has not given the account of any date, time or place where she was beaten up by the defendants. No other document has been filed to show that defendants were having acrimonious relations with the plaintiff It is pertinent to note that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Specific Relief Act. Section 41 of the Act provides that no injunction can be granted when equally efficacious relief is available with the plaintiff. Plaintiff had equally efficacious relief under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 available with her. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no ground has been made out in favour of plaintiff to grant the relief of mandatory injunction keeping in view the provisions of Section 41 (h) Digitally signed by VIKAS MADAAN VIKAS Date:
Pages 9 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21 MADAAN 2023.12.18 15:41:09 +0530 of Specific Relief Act.
Accordingly, this Issue stands decided against plaintiff.
15. RELIEF In view of aforementioned findings and observations, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE VIKAS
Digitally signed by
VIKAS MADAAN
OPEN COURT TODAY MADAAN Date: 2023.12.18
15:41:18 +0530
18.12.2023 (VIKAS MADAAN)
CIVIL JUDGE-01, WEST, TIS HAZARI
Note: This judgment contains COURTS, DELHI
10 pages and each page is signed
by the under signed.
Pages 10 of 10 Vijay Laxmi Wadhwa Vs. Inderjeet CS SCJ No.189/21