Delhi District Court
Ram Kumar vs Ishwar Singh on 3 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI, ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JSCC-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS SCJ : 426311/2016
CNR NO. DLSW030008052015
Ram Kumar
s/o Sh. Munna Lal
r/o House No. A-62,
Vikas Nagar Extension,
Near Rajdhani Public School,
Balaji Road, New Delhi-59. ........Plaintiff
Versus
Ishwar Singh
s/o Sh. Ram Kumar ..........Defendant no.1
Sunita @ Sunila
w/o Sh. Ishwar Singh ..........Defendant no.2
Both r/o House No. A-62,
Vikas Nagar Extension,
Near Rajdhani Public School,
Balaji Road, New Delhi-59.
Date of institution : 24.09.2015
Arguments heard on : 10.12.2021
Date of decision : 03.01.2022
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are:−
1. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner in possession of suit property, that is, plot number A-62, ad-measuring 83 yd.², out of khasra number 30/17, Village Hastsal, in a colony known as Vikas Nagar Extension, New Delhi. It is his case that CS No. 426311/2016 Ram Kumar vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr Page no. 1/8 he had purchased the suit property on 03.05.2006 from its previous owner using his own funds through a chain of documents - registered GPA, and notarized agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt and possession letter. It is stated that the plaintiff has four children, one of whom is defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1. It is stated that after the marriage of the defendants on 23.11.2011, the defendants started residing with the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendants have been cruel towards the plaintiff and his old aged wife. It is stated that the defendants always abuse the plaintiff and his wife and threaten them that they would implicate them in false criminal cases. It is stated that the defendants also abused the unmarried daughter of the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendants used to pressurise the plaintiff to transfer the suit property in their name and when the plaintiff did not agree to their demand, the defendants used to beat the plaintiff in front of the neighbours, compel him to do the household chores and used to prevent the plaintiff from talking with the neighbours. It is stated that on various occasions the defendants gave merciless beatings to the plaintiff, his wife and their unmarried daughter. It is stated that due to the cruel conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff disowned the defendants via newspaper publication in the newspaper on 28.07.2015 and also intimated the same to the local police. It is stated that even thereafter the defendants continued to abuse and threaten the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has managed to purchase the suit property with great hardship and has raised all the children well. It is stated that the plaintiff also made a written complaint to the local police on 25.08.2015 for lodging of FIR, but no action was taken. It is stated that on 26.08.2015 the defendants tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. It is stated that on 10.09.2015 and 12.09.2015, the defendants gave severe beatings to the plaintiff and his wife. It is stated that the defendants threatened that they would sell the suit property and if the plaintiff did not vacate the property immediately, he will have to face dire consequences. Hence the present suit has been filed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the possession of the suit property or creating any third party interest over the suit property. It is also prayed CS No. 426311/2016 Ram Kumar vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr Page no. 2/8 that the defendants be restrained from creating any nuisance towards the plaintiff in the suit property. It is further prayed that a decree of mandatory injunction is granted directing the defendants to hand-over the peaceful possession of the portion of the suit property in their possession, that is, one room. It is further prayed that defendants be directed not to beat, torture or abuse the plaintiff.
2. The defendants filed a written statement stating that defendant no.1 had been earning since January 1998 and he had contributed every month in the joint family funds. It is stated that the suit property was purchased from the earnings of the plaintiff and defendant no.1. It is stated that the property was purchased by the plaintiff but defendant no.1 was assured that he will get a 50% share in the suit property after his marriage. It is stated that defendant no.1 raised construction over the suit property and after he got married in the year 2011, he stayed in one room accommodation in the suit property with his wife and children. It is stated that the plaintiff and his wife used to torture defendant no.2 for dowry.
3. The plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement of the defendants. The plaintiff reaffirmed the contents of the plaint and denied the averments made in the written statement. It was also stated that the plaintiff had filed a petition before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, that is, W.P. (CRL) no. 698/2016 titled as "Ram Kumar & another vs State (NCT of Delhi) & others." It is stated that in the said writ petition, the counsel of the defendants had stated that the defendants have left the suit property and there was no threat to the life of the plaintiff, but this is incorrect since the defendants have admitted that they are in possession of the suit property in their written statement.
4. Vide order dated 16.12.2017 following issues were framed:
"(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? (OPP)
(iii) Whether no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed/concealed true and CS No. 426311/2016 Ram Kumar vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr Page no. 3/8 material facts from the court? (OPD-1 & 2)
(iv) Relief."
5. The plaintiff entered the witness box as PW 1 to prove his case. He relied on his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW 1/A, a copy of GPA Ex PW 1/1, a copy of complaint dated 25.08.2015 Ex PW1/2, a copy of newspaper publication Ex PW 1/3, intimation to local police Ex PW 1/4, postal and courier receipts Ex PW 1/5 and Ex PW 1/6, a copy of his Aadhaar card Ex PW 1/7, a copy of his voter ID card Ex PW 1/8 and a copy of electricity bill Ex PW 1/9.
Despite repeated opportunities, the defendants did not cross-examine the witness.
6. The defendants did not lead any evidence.
7. Heard. Record perused.
8. Issue wise findings are as under:
8.1 "(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? (OPP)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? (OPP)"
8.1.1. Both these issues are connected and are being taken up for decision together.
The plaintiff has deposed on oath and has relied on the registered GPA Ex PW1/1 to state that the suit property belongs to him. The defendants have also admitted in their written statement that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff. Although the defendants claimed that the suit property was purchased from the earnings of the plaintiff and defendant no.1, the defendants have not proved the alleged payments done by defendant no.1. Even otherwise, the law of contract does not mandate that consideration must flow from the beneficiary under the contract. The defendants have not filed any suit for declaration of their rights over the suit property. Therefore, it is not disputed that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff.
8.1.2. The plaintiff has deposed that the defendants were permitted to reside in one room of the suit property. The plaintiff has also deposed that the defendants are CS No. 426311/2016 Ram Kumar vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr Page no. 4/8 abusive towards him and his old-aged wife and due to this, they were constrained to publish a public notice Ex PW1/3 disowning the defendants. He has further deposed that he and his wife were being subjected to beatings regularly, particularly on 16.11.2014, 19.07.2015 and 19.08.2015, and being pressurised to transfer the suit property in their names. He has further deposed that the facts of such abuses and publication were brought to the notice of local police vide letters Ex PW1/2 and Ex PW1/4.
The defendants have admitted in their written statement that the relations between them and the plaintiff (and his wife) were not cordial. Further, since the defendants have not cross-examined PW1, his testimony has remained unrebutted. There is no justified explanation as to why the defendants are continuing to occupy the suit property against the wishes and to the annoyance of the plaintiff. 8.1.3. In this regard, it is important to take note of the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 698/2016. In the said order, it is recorded that after the local police were sent to the suit property for threat assessment (to the plaintiff), it was reported that the defendants have left the suit property. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the local police to ensure the safety of the plaintiff and his wife. Yet in the written statement filed on 30.11.2016, the defendants have stated that they are in possession of one room of the suit property. They have not given justification or explanation of the order dated 23.09.2016, though the order was passed after their service. It appears that the defendants are playing hide and seek with the process of law. 8.1.4. This Court has also given due consideration to the fact that the suit property is the matrimonial house of defendant no.2. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment in the case of Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha and Another cited at 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11530 wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court had observed that :
"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 daughter-in-law and to provide for a dignified roof/shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of CS No. 426311/2016 Ram Kumar vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr Page no. 5/8 providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-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 daughter-in-law 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-in-law or daughter/son-in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain 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 daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws 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 daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating 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 daughter-in- law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
8.1.5. As is clear from the testimony of the plaintiff, the defendants were residing with the plaintiff as a part of a joint family. It is also proved that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants had become acrimonious after defendant no. 1 got married. There is nothing on record to suggest that defendant no. 1 is in collusion with the plaintiff. Rather, the same counsel appeared for both the defendants in this case and they filed a single written statement, which shows that both the defendants are in a cordial relationship.
8.1.6. It is also proved from the deposition of the plaintiff that the defendants were CS No. 426311/2016 Ram Kumar vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr Page no. 6/8 ill-treating the plaintiff and his wife who are of advanced ages and certainly deserve to reside in peace in their property.
8.1.7. Therefore, in light of the observation in the case of Vinay Varma (supra), it is the obligation of defendant no. 1 to provide for adequate residence to defendant no. 2. The plaintiff is entitled to seek eviction of the defendants from the suit property.
8.1.8. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants. The defendants are directed to vacate one room in property number A-62, ad-measuring 83 yd.², out of khasra number 30/17, Village Hastsal, in a colony known as Vikas Nagar Extension, New Delhi (as per the site plan) within one month from today. It is also directed that the defendants shall not create any nuisance or hinder in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendants are further restrained from transferring the possession of the suit property or creating any third party interest over the suit property.
With these directions, both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
8.2 "(iii) Whether no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed/concealed true and material facts from the court? (OPD-1 & 2)"
The onus of proving this issue was on the defendants. However, the defendants have not led any evidence. Since it was admitted by the defendants that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff and they were residing in the same without his consent, it cannot be said that there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the defendants have not proved what facts were concealed by the plaintiff in the plaint or how he has not approached the Court with clean hands.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It is held that there was a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and it is not proved that the plaintiff had not approached the Court CS No. 426311/2016 Ram Kumar vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr Page no. 7/8 with clean hands or had suppressed/concealed true and material facts from the Court.
8.3 "(iv) Relief."
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Cost of the suit awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. RICHA Digitally signed
by RICHA
File be consigned to record room. GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI
Date: 2022.01.03
SOLANKI 12:32:29 +05'30'
Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki)
through CISCO WebEx JSCC/ASCJ/GJ:S-W:
on 03rd January 2022 Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
CS No. 426311/2016
Ram Kumar vs. Ishwar Singh & Anr Page no. 8/8