Delhi District Court
Ranjit Singh & Anr vs Simran Kaur on 29 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS RAJRANI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE09, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No. 459/16
Ranjit Singh & Anr. ...........Plaintiffs
Versus
Simran Kaur .........Defendant
O R D E R
29.04.2016
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of two applications under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and application seeking direction for eviction of the defendant from suit property filed by the plaintiffs.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendant praying for restraining the defendant to forcibly enter the property noD12/B, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is stated that his son Sh. Chandandeep was married to C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 1/12 defendant Smt. Simran Kaur on 01.12.2008.
It is further stated that after the marriage of their son with the defendant they started living in aforsaid house of the plaintiffs. They had given one room as a gesture of goodwill and plaintiff and defendant were enjoying the facility of common mess.
It is stated that defendant was permitted to live in the suit premises as a licensee and now the plaintiffs are not willing to allow the defendant to live under the same roof with them as defendant is determined to implicate the plaintiffs and their son in a criminal cases. On 02.06.2015, son of plaintiffs alongwith defendant and their children got another premises on rent and sifted there. Defendant took away all her goods and belongings from the suit property. It is further stated that on 07.07.2015 defendant and her mother had come to the suit property and shouted and abused the plaintiffs. It is stated that defendant made police complaint against the plaintiffs and their son. It is next stated that on 18.08.2015 defendant threatened to enter the house of the plaintiff forcibly. It is further stated that on 21.08.2015 defendant with her mother, brother and children came in front of the house of the plaintiffs and again threatened to enter the suit premises forcefully. She has broken the CCTV cameras installed outside the suit premises.
It is prayed that the defendant or her agents, assigns and associates be restrained to enter the suit premises.
3. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendant and the C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 2/12 defendant filed the written statement and raised preliminarily objections that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable on the ground of concealment of facts as the plaintiffs have not approached this court with clean hands. Plaintiffs have concealed the material fact from this court that the defendant is in actual physical possession of the suit property, prior to filing of the present suit.
4. It is stated by the defendant that plaintiffs and their son i.e husband of the defendant have inflicted inhuman cruelties upon the defendant and minor children. The plaintiffs with the active connivance of their son and relatives, with a view to throw the defendant out of the matrimonial home and with a view to get rid of the defendant, on 02.06.2016, shifted the defendant and minor children to rented accommodation at J11/41, Third floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and after few days of the shifting, the son of the plaintiffs left the said rented house on 08.07.2015, after leaving the defendant and the minor children namely Nayaab (daughter) aged 4 years and Nirvair (son) 2 years at the mercy of others and shifted back alone to his parental home i.e the suit property. The defendant with a view to save her marriage life, agreed to shift to said rented accommodation with her husband, without knowing the fact that the plaintiffs were doing the same under their calculated modus operandi to throw the defendant out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 21.08.2015, the defendant shifted back in the front room of the matrimonial home i.e the suit C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 3/12 property alongwith minor children, which was already under the lock and key and in physical possession of the defendant and the household goods, belongings and boutique material of the defendant were also lying in the said room. It is further stated that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from this Court to the effect that defendant was and is in actual physical possession of the suit premises prior to the filing of the present suit. It is submitted that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 22.08.2015 only just after a day when FIR and kalandra under Section 107/151 Cr. PC was logded against the son of the plaintiffs and their relatives upon the complaint of the defendant. This fact has been suppressed by the plaintiffs from the court. It is further stated that suit property is the matrimonial home of the defendant and she has every right to live and is accordingly residing therein. The husband of the defendant and plaintiff no. 1 are a business partner and defendant is also a partner with plaintiff no. 2 in a business and the income of the said business is spent upon the kitchen of the matrimonial home and the meals are being prepared from one common kitchen. Defendant placed on record Partnership Deeds. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed.
5. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that plaintiffs are senior citizens and also suffering from old age disease. It is submitted by the counsel for the plaintiffs that defendant is a short tempered lady and son of plaintiffs has filed the divorce petition against C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 4/12 the defendant on the ground of cruelty and adultery. It is further submitted that defendant was permitted to live in the suit premises as a licensee and now the plaintiffs are not willing to allow the defendant to live under the same roof with them as defendant is determined to implicate the plaintiffs and their son in a criminal cases. It is further submitted that the suit property is self acquired property and son of the plaintiffs was minor when property was purchased. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that defendant and her husband have no right to reside in the suit property. When husband of defendant has no right to reside in the property, defendant also does not have any right to remain in the same.
It is further submitted that the suit property is neither shared house nor matrimonial house of the defendant and she forcibly entered the suit property on 22.08.2015 after passing exparte injunction order by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and prayed that she may be evicted from the suit property.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs also placed on record CCTV Footage of dated 18.08.2015 and 21.08.2015.
6. Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon judgments:
Civil Appeal No.3489 of 2000 titled as Appasheb Beerappa Chamdgade Vs. Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No.4769 of 2006 titled as Gangadhar Pillai Vs. Siemes Ltd, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Civil Appeal No.9709 of 2011 titled as Makers Development Services Private Ltd. Vs. M. Visvesvarya Industrial Research and Development Centre, Hon'ble C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 5/12 Supreme Court of India. Civil Appela No. 2293 of 2005 titled as Dhanraj Singh Choudhary Vs. Nathulal Vishwakarma, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Criminal Appeal No.108/2013 titled as Kishan Tripathi @ Kishan Painter Vs. State, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Criminal Revision No.2654 of 2009, titled as Ajayta Vs. Harminder Singh, Hon'ble Punjan and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Criminal Appeal No.111/14 titled as Nahar Singh & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Civil Appeal Nos.683940 of 1995, titled as Gujrat Bottlings Co.Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Coca Cola Co. & Ors.Civil No. 7130 of 2002 titled as South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union Vs. B. Yashodabai & Ors., Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. FAO(OS) 341/2007, titled as Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors., Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Civil Appeal No. 5837 of 2006 titled as S.R. Batra & Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra, , Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Civil Appeal No. 920 of 2007 titled as Khazan Singh By Lrs Vs. Gurbbhajan Singh & Ors., Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.CS No.1738/2013 titled as Harish Chand Tandon Vs. Darpan Tandon & Anr. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Appeal no.31217/2015 titled as Bharti Rajesh Bhave Vs. Cooperatie Housing Society Ltd.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that suit property is the share household/matrimonial house of the defendant and after marriage she resided in the suit property and enjoyed the facility of common mess/kitchen. It is further submitted that defendant has right to reside in the suit property being a daughterinlaw. The plaintiffs with the connivance of their son and relatives, with a view to throw the defendant out of the matrimonial home on 02.06.2016, shifted the defendant and minor children to rented accommodation. But on 08.07.2015, son of the plaintiffs i.e. the husband of the defendant left the said rented house and shifted back alone to the suit property. It C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 6/12 is further submitted that address of the defendant given in the divorce petition is same i.e. the address of the suit property and this shows the malafide intention of son of the plaintiffs that he want to get rid of the defendant. On 21.08.2015, one day before the filing of the present suit, defendant shifted back in the front room of the suit property where her belongings and boutique material were already lying. The defendant was in the possession of the suit property on 22.08.2015 i.e. date of filing of the present suit but this fact has been concealed by the plaintiffs from the Court.
8. Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon the following judgment:
Civil Appeal No. 58935894 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP © Nos. 2604344/2004), titled as "TCI Finance Ltd. Vs Calcutta Medical Center Ltd. & Anr." passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.Civil Appeal No. 3697 of 1991 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 301 of 1991) titled as "East India Hotels Ltd. Vs Syndicate Bank" passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, FAO (OS) 196/2014, titled as "Navneet Arora Vs Surender Kaur" passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, RFA (OS) 24/2012, CM Appeal 4236/2012, 4237/2012 & 5451/2013 in case titled as "Preeti Satija Vs Raj Kumari & Anr." passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Crl. M.C. no. 452/2008 and Crl. M.A. No. 13069, 13736, 14326, 14664, 14838 and 14839 of 2008 and 139 of 2009 in case titled "Nidhi Kumar Gandhi Vs The State & Ors."
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 728 titled "Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division Bareilly & Ors.", CS (OS) 1738/2013 titled "Harish Chand Tandon Vs Darpan Tandon & Ors." passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 7/12
9. I have heard the arguments and gone through the material available on record.
10. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying for grant of permanent injunction claiming themselves as the absolute owners of the suit premises by virtue of the sale deed dated 16.06.2000. The plaintiffs have moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying for interim injunction till the disposal of the suit and also moved an application for eviction of defendant from the suit property. Suit of the plaintiff is opposed by the defendant mainly on two grounds:
Firstly it is stated by the defendant that plaintiffs have concealed the material facts, therefore, on ground of concealment of the facts, plaintiffs are not entitled for grant of discretionary relief. It is stated by the defendant that plaintiffs have concealed the material facts that defendant is in actual physical possession of the suit property.
Secondly, defendant has raised the issue that suit premises is matrimonial/shared household of the defendant and submitted that the suit premises was purchased from the funds of HUF and the husband of the defendant is the member of said HUF and defendant being the wife of the member have every right in the said matrimonial home and plaintiffs have admitted the possession of the defendant in the suit property. Prayer made by plaintiff in application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has become infractuous. Defendant stated that as she is in possession of suit property, present suit is not maintainable.
C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 8/12
11. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs relied upon S.R. Batra Case(Supra) case but the facts of S.R. Batra case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also distinguished S. R. Batra case in Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur(Supra) and facts of the Navneet Arora case are same that of the facts of the present case.
12. In "Ambika Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujrat & ors. (1987) 1 SCC 213", it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it.
As held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. N.R. Vairamani & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 4778, a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same judgment, the court also observed: "Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed observations of courts are neither to be read as Eulids theorems nor as provisions of the C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 9/12 statute and that too taken out of the context.
These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated.
Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes."
13. Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed in Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur, in FAO(OS) 196/2014 D.O.D. 10.09.2014 that while deciding Taruna Batra's case (Supra) the Supreme Court took into consideration the fact that after the marriage Ms.Taruna Batra and her husband Amit Batra started living at the second floor of the suit premises, whereas the in laws resided separately on the ground floor of the suit property. In view of the said state of affairs, it is palpably evident that Ms.Taruna Batra and her husband were not living together with Ms.Taruna Batra's inlaws, as members of joint family' in the legalsense and the second floor of the suitproperty would not qualify as the shared household' in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act. The fact that the husband and wife resided on a separate floor altogether is indicative of the fact that they were not living as a joint family' with the inlaws of Ms.Taruna Batra.
It is a settled proposition that to constitute a joint family' the members thereof must not only reside together but partake meals prepared from a C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 10/12 common kitchen, whereas it appears from the perusal of the judgment rendered in Taruna Batra's case (Supra) that there was nothing to indicate that the kitchen was common.
It was also observed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court that in Taruna Batra's case (Supra), Ms.Taruna Batra and her husband Amit Batra were not residing with the Appellants as members of joint family' in a shared household' as understood in the legalistic sense, the residence and kitchen being separate.
Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court further observed that the Supreme Court also observed that in view of the admitted fact that Ms.Taruna Batra had shifted to the residence of her parents owing to matrimonial disputes with her husband and was thus no longer in possession of the said portion of suit property, the question of protecting her possession could not arise. The very foundation of her claim for injunction restraining the inlaws from dispossessing her was thus wholly misconceived."
14. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking relief for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from entering into suit property. It is stated by the plaintiffs in para No.2 of the plaint that after marriage of their son with the defendant, they started living in the suit property. It is further submitted that son of plaintiff and defendant were enjoying the facility of common mess. Now, it has come on record, even admitted by the plaintiffs that she has entered one room of the suit property. As per plaintiffs, she has entered the suit property on 22.08.2015 and as per C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 11/12 defendant she was already in possession at the time of filing of the present suit. When defendant entered suit property is matter of evidence and cannot be decided at this stage. Admittedly, defendant is in possession and this court is of the opinion that relief of plaintiffs for permanent injunction have become infractuous. Application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 of CPC having been infractuous is dismissed.
15. Plaintiff has also moved another application for eviction of the defendant from the suit property. The nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs is in the nature of mandatory injunction. The law with regard to mandatory injunction is well settled. It is only in very rare cases that mandatory injunction is granted on an interlocutary application. This relief cannot be granted at this stage as in the present suit plaintiffs claimed the relief of permanent injunction only and not the mandatory injunction. There is no specific prayer in the prayer clause regarding mandatory injunction and interim mandatory injunction. The application filed by plaintiff for eviction of defendant is also dismissed.
Both applications are disposed of accordingly.
Announced in the open court (RAJRANI)
Dated : 29.04.2016 Additional District Judge:
West09:Tis Hazari Courts:
Delhi
C.S. No.459/2016 Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Simran Kaur 12/12