Delhi District Court
Smt. Prem Nigam Gola vs Smt. Santosh W/O Sh. Raj Kumar on 24 April, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDHARTH MATHUR, CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI
In the matter of: Suit No. 112/07
Smt. Prem Nigam Gola,
W/o Sh. Hari Chand Gola,
R/o A-2/13, 1st Floor,
Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 059 ......... Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Santosh W/o Sh. Raj Kumar
D/o Sh. Kanwar Sain, R/o A-2/13, Second Floor,
Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 059 ........... Defendant
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1.By this order I shall decide the plaintiff filed for declaration that there is no domestic relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant with further declarations to the effect that the defendant is not a family member of the plaintiff & that the property bearing No. A- 2/13, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (In short the "suit property") is not shared house hold of the defendant.
The suit of the plaintiff in the nutshell is that she is legally wedded wife of Sh. Hari Chand Gola and is residing at the suit property. The plaintiff is stated to be the daughter-in-law of one Sh. Ishwar Dass i.e father of her husband.
The defendant is stated to be legally wedded wife of Sh.
Suit No. 112/07 1 of 6 Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Udai Ram. The defendant is stated to be residing at the suit property as a tenant of the plaintiff at a monthly rent of 3,000/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. The tenancy of the defendant has been allegedly terminated due to the non-payment of the rent by her.
It is further stated in the suit that there is no family relationship between the parties since their is no relationship either by full blood, half blood, uterine, lineal or collateral consanguinity between the husband of the plaintiff and husband of the defendant & that the plaintiff is not the jethani of the defendant. It has been stated in the suit that the mother-in-law of the plaintiff & mother-in-law of the defendant are sisters to each other however the families of both the parties have separate ancestors. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no domestic relationship between the parties but in order to grab the suit property illegally & evade the payment of the arrears of rent and eviction from the suit property which property belongs to the plaintiff, the defendant has lodged a false complaint before the CAW Cell, P.S. Kirti Nagar not only against her husband but against the plaintiff, her son & daughter in law as well. The plaintiff along with her son and daughter in law had filed a anticipatory bail application, whereby vide order dated 06.02.2007, the Ld. Additional District & Session Judge, Delhi had ordered that in event of registration of Suit No. 112/07 2 of 6 an FIR on the complaint of the defendant, the concerned I.O. shall give 3 days notice to plaintiff, her son and daughter in law before their arrest.
Accordingly, it is stated in the suit that the defendant is trying up to set up a false domestic relationship with the plaintiff by falsely implicating her & family members in the police complaint before the CAW Cell & thus the present suit has been filed for the reliefs of declarations.
2. The defendant was personally served by way of ordinary process on 01.04.2007 for 02.04.2007, however, on 02.04.2007 the Court was on leave and on the next date of hearing i.e. on 03.04.2007 the defendant appeared in person and sought time for filing written statement. On the further next date of hearing, i.e. 25.04.2007, the defendant did not appear and the matter was adjourned to 17.05.2007 for written statement, but, again on 17.05.2007 since none appeared on behalf of the defendant, she was proceeded exparte. The defendant remained exparte thereafter & needless to say that she neither filed any written statement nor led any evidence.
3. The plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 in support of her case and filed her examination in chief on affidavit as P-1. The testimony Suit No. 112/07 3 of 6 of PW-1 is on the similar lines of the plaint.
Though the testimony of PW-1 goes unrebutted and unchallenged, but still in my opinion the suit of the plaintiff is incapable of being decreed. Though the plaintiff has claimed that there was no domestic relationship between the plaintiff & defendant since neither she is jethani of the defendant nor the defendant is family member of the plaintiff, however, when it has come on record from the mouth of the plaintiff herself that the defendant in the complaint to the CAW Cell is claiming the suit property as a shared house hold on the basis of her domestic relationship between the parties, it was incumbent for the plaintiff to join the husband of the defendant as well as her husband as parties to the instant suit because they were necessary parties since whatever relationship the defendant is allegedly claiming with the plaintiff (which relationship has allegedly been negated by the plaintiff) is through her husband with that of the husband of the plaintiff. In my view, in absence of husband of the plaintiff as well as the husband of defendant being made parties herein, the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.
Moreover in para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that she is not the jethani of the defendant which makes it inferable that in the proceedings before the CAW Cell or elsewhere the defendant might Suit No. 112/07 4 of 6 have been claiming the plaintiff to be her jethani. Now in this eventuality in order to deny the plaintiff being jethani of the defendant, respective husbands of the parties should have been joined in as the parties by the plaintiff which is not been done, thus the suit of the plaintiff is bad under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC & is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
However, one more thing has been noticed by me is that the plaintiff has filed a copy of the ration card pertaining to her husband in respect of the suit property wherein it has been mentioned that the name of the father of the plaintiffs husband i.e. father-in-law of the plaintiff is Nandu Mal however in the plaint the plaintiff has stated that the name of the father of her husband is as Sh. Ishwar Dass. Their is a misrepresentation on behalf of the plaintiff in respect of the name of her father in law, which stands exposed by the document of the plaintiff herself. It seems like that the plaintiff is trying to conceal the true linage of her husband so as to avoid any legal action against herself by the defendant on the basis of defendant's relationship with the plaintiff/plaintiffs husband or ancestors of the plaintiffs & defendant's husband. The relief of declaration sought for in the plaint are discretionary in nature & are capable of being refused on misrepresentation of material facts. The depiction of the correct name of the father in law of the plaintiff was of paramount importance in the Suit No. 112/07 5 of 6 instant suit since the plaintiff is trying to deny having any lineal relationship with the defendant with reference to her or her husbands ancestral table & thus the misrepresentation by the plaintiff in the name of her father in law is a material fact.
The suit of the plaintiff seems to have been filed so as to avoid any legal repercussions which might fall in place against her in respect of the complaint of the defendant before CAW Cell against the plaintiff, her son and daughter in law. This exercise on behalf of the plaintiff not at all permissible since if there is no relationship as of family member between the instant parties, the plaintiff can properly seek appropriate redressal in that regard in the criminal proceedings, if any taken up on the complaint of the defendant before the CAW Cell. The present suit cannot be allowed to be decreed so as to defeat the criminal proceedings taken up by the defendant against the plaintiff/her family members.
For the reasons assigned herein above, the suit of this plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No orders as to costs. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on 24.04.2008.
(SIDHARTH MATHUR)
CIVIL JUDGE / DELHI
Suit No. 112/07 6 of 6