Delhi District Court
Geeta Wahal vs Niharika on 8 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-03, NORTH-WEST DISTT.,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
08.10.2024
RCA DJ no. 13/21
GEETA WAHAL
VS.
NIHARIKA & ANR.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/ plaintiff has preferred an appeal against the order/judgment dated 25.01.2021 vide which the court of Ms. Meenu Kaushik, the then Ld. SCJ, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court), dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant in suit titled as "Geeta Wahal Vs. Niharika, Suit no. 1027/17" (hereinafter referred to as the suit).
2. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents/ defendants. Only the respondent no.1/ defendant no.1 appeared and argued. No reply was filed by the respondent no.1.
3. The appellant/ plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court wherein the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant was dismissed.
RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 124. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status as before the Ld. Trial Court.
5. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties. I have also gone through the record. Briefly stated the facts of the case, which led to the filing of the impugned suit are that the appellant/ plaintiff claimed herself to be the owner of the suit property i.e. Flat no. 152, SFS flats, Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property.) The defendant no. 1 is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, while the defendant no. 2 is her son. It was stated that after the marriage between the defendants, the defendant no. 1 was residing as a licensee in the suit property, while the defendant no. 2 shifted at his own residence at Ghaziabad. It was also stated that the defendants used to harass the plaintiff by giving her threats of false and criminal complaints.
6. Hence, on 24.12.2016, the plaintiff issued a public notice in the newspapers, "Jan Satta and Indian Express", whereby she debarred the defendants from claiming any the right in her properties. It was also alleged that the defendant no. 1 created a hostile environment disturbing the peace and tranquility of the plaintiff. Hence, she filed the impugned suit seeking mandatory injunction that the defendants should vacate the suit property and permanent injunction that they should not forcefully or illegally dispossess the RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 12 plaintiff from the suit property or create any third party interest in the same.
7. Vide the impugned judgment, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the present appeal was filed by the appellant/ plaintiff on the following grounds:-
(a) That the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff despite the fact that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. Further the defendant no. 1 was allowed to reside in the property only as a licensee.
b) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the defendant no. 1 used to misbehave with the plaintiff who is a senior citizen of 71 years of age and that she is entitled to live peacefully in the property owned by her.
c) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the defendant no. 1 was in the illegal possession of the suit property and that she is entitled only to reside with her husband, who was residing at Ghaziabad.
d) That the defendant no. 1 was liable to vacate the suit property when her license to reside there was terminated by the plaintiff but this fact was not considered by the Ld. Trial Court.RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 12
8. Hence, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court was not maintainable in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the defendant no. 2 i.e. the son of the plaintiff was owner of 50% share in the suit property. However, he had transferred his share in the name of the plaintiff in 2006. Hence, it was stated that the plaintiff had become the sole and absolute owner of the property in 2006 much prior to the marriage between the defendants. Hence, the Ld. Trial Court's opinion that the defendant no. 2 had transferred the property in the name of the plaintiff to defeat the rights of the defendant no. 1 was based on a conjecture as the marriage between the parties had yet not taken place.
9. Further, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that another matter was pending between the parties before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Geeta Wahal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi in Writ petition no. 9877/21 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has directed the defendant no. 1 to vacate the suit property within 2 months and it has also been directed that the defendant no. 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 per month for her residence. Hence, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court may be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed.
10. Per contra, the appeal was resisted by the respondent/ defendant no. 1 on the ground that there was no error or mistake in the RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 12 judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court. It was submitted that the present defendant was the third wife of the son of the plaintiff i.e. the defendant no. 2. Initially the property was owned equally by the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 but later on, to defeat the rights of the first two wives of the defendant no. 2 and subsequently the present defendant, the defendant no. 2 transferred his share in the suit property to his mother. It was argued that as per the impugned documents, the consideration which exchanged hands was only Rs. 2 lakhs which indicated clearly that the intention was only to transfer the property so as to defeat the rights of the wives of the defendant no. 2. It was also stated that during the entire trial, the plaintiff used to appear in the court with the defendant no. 2 only which indicated that they were hands in glove with each other and that the suit had been filed in collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2. Further, it was argued that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that the present suit if decreed, would defeat the rights of the defendant no. 1 under the Domestic Violence Act as the suit property is the matrimonial house/ shared household of the defendant no.1. It is stated that the defendant no.2 shifted to Ghaziabad only to get the property evicted by the defendant no.1. He had no intention to stay with the defendant no.1. Hence, it was argued that there was no error on infirmity in the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court and hence the appeal may be dismissed.
11. Record perused.
RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 1212. In the present matter, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. It is admitted that earlier, the property was jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 but the defendant no. 2 transferred his share to the plaintiff in the year 2006. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 has argued that the said transfer was made only to defeat the rights of the wives of the defendant no. 2. However, it is a matter of record that the said transaction is not in challenge before any court. Further, as per record, the Sale Deed was executed by the defendant no. 2 in the favor of the plaintiff in respect of his share in the suit property in the year 2006 by way of a registered document. The same is proved as Ex. PW1/3. Further, as per record, the defendants got married to each other only in the year 2015 i.e. much after the said transfer. Hence, it cannot be said that the said transfer was done with the view to defeat the rights of the defendant no. 2.
13. Hence, it is proved on record that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. Hence, she has a right to enjoy the property as per her own wishes. The plaintiff has specifically alleged in the plaint as well as in her evidence that the defendant no. 2 used to harass her. Even if the fact of the harassment is not taken to be proved, it is still clear that there is a discord between the parties to such an extent that the parties do not wish to reside with each other and there are various cases pending between them.
RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 1214. However, the defendant no.1, being the wife of the defendant no. 2, had a right to reside in the matrimonial house i.e. the suit property under the provisions of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act. A specific issue was framed by the Ld. Trial Court in this regard as to whether the suit property was the shared household of the defendant no.1 or not. The Ld. Trial Court has discussed the issue at great length and has concluded that the suit property was the shared household of the defendant no.1. Ld. Trial Court has observed in the judgment that since the date of the marriage between the defendants on 29.01.2015, they resided at the suit property, till the defendant no.2 shifted at the rented accommodation at Ghaziabad on 03.08.2017. Hence, in the opinion of the court, Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that the suit property was the shared household of the defendant no.1.
15. In these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that there is no error or infirmity in the judgment pronounced by the Ld. Trial Court in as much as the right of residence of the defendant no.1 had to be protected by the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed on record copy of a judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition no. 9877/2021 titled as Geeta Wahal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. The said Writ petition was filed by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner dismissing the plaintiff's appeal against RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 12 order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate under the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
16. Vide the said petition, the plaintiff had sought the eviction of the defendant no. 1 from the suit property under the said Act. While discussing the rights of the parties under the Senior Citizens Act and the Domestic Violence Act, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi noted that the plaintiff could not have been deprived of her right to enjoy the property. However, it was also noted that the courts have to balance both the statutory rights as laid down in the above mentioned Acts. While drawing harmonious construction between the two Acts, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the defendant no. 2 i.e. the husband of the defendant no. 1 to pay an additional amount of Rs. 15,000 per month to the defendant no.1 for the enabling her to have an alternate accommodation in view of her right to residence. It was directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in case he did not make the said payment to the defendant no. 1, then the present plaintiff shall pay the said amount to the defendant no. 1.
17. It was further directed that once the financial support started, then the defendant no. 1 shall vacate the suit property and hand over the vacant physical possession of the property to the petitioner i.e. the plaintiff within 2 months. Similar directions have also been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinay Verma v. Kanika Pasricha CM(M) 1582/2018 decided on 29.08.2019 and RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 12 Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma RFA 222/19 decided on 18.12.2019.
18. It has been directed in the Ambika Jain case (supra) that in such cases, it is required that the husband should be added as a party in the suit. In the present case, the husband of the defendant no.1 is already added as a party. Further, Hon'ble High Court has directed that:
"In these circumstances, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The matters are remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions given hereinbelow:
(i) At the first instance, in all cases where the respondent"s son/the appellant"s husband has not been impleaded, the trial Court shall direct his impleadment by invoking its suo motu powers under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
(ii) The trial Court will then consider whether the appellant had made any unambiguous admission about the respondent"s ownership rights in respect of the suit premises; if she has and her only defence to being dispossessed therefrom is her right of residence under the DV Act, then the trial Court shall, before passing a decree of possession on the sole premise of ownership RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 12 rights, ensure that in view of the subsisting rights of the appellant under the DV Act, she is provided with an alternate accommodation as per Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which will continue to be provided to her till the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.
(iii) In cases where the appellant specifically disputes the exclusive ownership rights of the respondents over the suit premises notwithstanding the title documents in their favour, the trial Court, while granting her an opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim, will be entitled to pass interim orders on applications moved by the respondents, directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises subject to the provision of a suitable alternate accommodation to her under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which direction would also be subject to the final outcome of the suit.
(iv) While determining as to whether the appellant"s husband or the in-laws bears the responsibility of providing such alternate accommodation to the appellant, if any, the trial Court may be guided by paragraph 46 of the decision in Vinay Verma (supra).
(v) The trial Court shall ensure that adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that the direction for alternate accommodation is not rendered meaningless and that a shelter is duly secured for the RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 12 appellant, during the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.
(vi) This exercise of directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises by granting her alternate accommodation will be completed expeditiously and not later than 6 months from today."
19. In view of the said directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the court is inclined to allow the present appeal. However, the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 shall comply with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition no. 9877/2021 titled as Geeta Wahal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. In view of the same, the judgment announced by the Ld. Trial Court is set aside and it is directed that the defendant no.1 shall vacate the suit property and hand over the vacant physical possession of the same to the plaintiff within 2 months of the commencement of the financial support as stipulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment dated 30.08.2024. It is also directed that the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 shall comply with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by paying the financial support as directed. In case the financial support is not paid at any point of time, then the defendant no.1 shall be entitled to reside in the suit property and can seek the execution of this order, as per law.
RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 1220. In view of the same, as it has been directed that the defendant no. 1 was entitled to retain the possession of the suit property in view of her right to residence under the Domestic Violence Act, no order for damages is passed. Hence, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
21. The Trial Court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court along with copy of this order. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No order as to cost. The present appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(RUCHIKA SINGLA) DJ-03 (N/W) Rohini Courts :Delhi/08.10.2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2024.10.08 16:35:51 +0530 RCA DJ No. 13/21 Geeta Wahal v. Niharika & Anr. Page 12 of 12